Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`Filed: August 21, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`____________
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`Filed: August 21, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`____________
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition on February 14, 2015, requesting an inter partes review of claims 1,
`
`6, 9, 12, 17, 18, 23, 28, 37, and 39–42 of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475 B2 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’475 patent”). (Paper 1, “Pet.”). Patent Owner, TriPlay Inc.,
`
`filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition on May 26, 2015 (Paper 12,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we conclude there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 17,
`
`18, 23, 28, 37, and 39–42 of the ’475 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’475 patent is the subject of a pending
`
`United States District Court proceeding captioned TriPlay, Inc. et al. v.
`
`WhatsApp Inc., Case No. 1:13‐cv‐1703‐LPS (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2013). Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’475 Patent
`
`The ’475 patent is directed generally to electronic messaging between
`
`communication devices. Ex. 1001, Abstract. More specifically, the ’475
`
`patent describes converting and or adapting formats/layouts of messages to
`
`be sent between an origination device and a destination device. Id.
`
`Referring to Figures 1 and 5, the ’475 patent describes messaging system 16
`
`as including access block 21 and media block 23. Id. at 12:62–65; 16:18–
`
`27. Access block 21 may include users’ gateway 211 and third-party
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`applications’ gateway 214 that support communication with communication
`
`devices and third party applications via corresponding networks. Id. at
`
`13:4–7; Fig. 2. For sending a message from an originating device to a
`
`destination device, the ’475 patent describes media block 23 of messaging
`
`system 16 with transcoder 232 and message manager 231. Id. at Fig. 5.
`
`Media block 23 “is configured to select the format and message layout
`
`fitting to the destination device and to convert the message accordingly
`
`before facilitating its delivery to the destination device.” Id. at 16:24–27.
`
`Converting includes transcoding the message format and/or adapting the
`
`message layout. Id. at 16:28–30. Message manager 231 is configured to
`
`provide layout adaptation and/or repackaging. Id. at 34–37.
`
`As an example of operation, Figure 6 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 6 shows a generalized flow diagram of operating messaging system
`
`16. Id. at 16:17–19. Messaging system 16 is connected with networks 13,
`
`14 and/or 15 illustrated in Figure 1 in a manner that the message
`
`communication originated by the subscriber and/or designated to the
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`subscriber shall pass through messaging system 16. Id. at 16:41–46. As
`
`shown in Figure 6 Subscriber A composes a message at one of the
`
`communication devices assigned and sends the message to Subscriber B and
`
`Non-subscriber C. Id. at 16:46–49. As the message is originated by the
`
`subscriber, it will be re-addressed to messaging system 16. Id. at 16:49–51.
`
`Messaging system 16 receives the message and analyzes 61 originating and
`
`destination addresses comprised in the message. Id. at 16:51–53.
`
`If it is found that the destination device is assigned to a subscriber
`
`(e.g., per domain name assigned to the subscribers, IP address or other
`
`device attribute stored in the database, etc.), the system decides 62 on the
`
`destination device, and takes a delivery decision 63 accordingly. Ex. 1001,
`
`16:53–58. 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. Id. at 16:63–17:4. In accordance with the delivery
`
`decision, the system provides transcoding of the message format 64 and/or
`
`adapting layout 65 and appropriate repackaging 66 if necessary (for
`
`example, if limitations by communication media and/or destination device,
`
`and/or DRM-related instructions or other reasons require deleting or
`
`replacing some of the media items comprised in the message). Id. at 17:6–
`
`12. The converted message and/or notification thereof are delivered 67 to
`
`the destination device, and the transaction is registered 68 in the system. Id.
`
`at 17:13–15. The described process may be provided in a similar manner for
`
`several destination devices. Id. at 17:16–20.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`As another example, Figure 9 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9 shows a generalized flow diagram of messaging between two
`
`subscribers wherein originating device 91 is a PC supporting synchronized
`
`multimedia message and destination device 94 is a PC supporting plain
`
`messages only. Ex. 1001, 19:4–8. Subscriber A composes 911 a
`
`synchronized multimedia message at originating device 91 to be sent to
`
`subscriber B. Id. at 19:8–10. A client at the originating device may be
`
`configured to obtain availability information from the messaging system
`
`and/or other platform(s), and request the messaging system for information
`
`with regard to Subscriber B preferences and/or results of preferred
`
`destination device calculations; the messaging system may be configured to
`
`provide such information to the client. Id. at 19:16–23.
`
`After the client obtains information with regard to the destination
`
`device, it takes delivery decision 912 and provides the appropriate
`
`transcoding 913 matching (fully or partly) the message to capabilities of
`
`destination device 94 and communication media. Id. at 19:24–28. The
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`converted message is uploaded 914 to messaging system 16 and received via
`
`user’s gateway 211. Id. at 19:28–29.
`
`The ’475 patent further describes the use of “a template based
`
`message, said template characterized by at least [a] unique identifier and an
`
`initial layout, wherein the system [is] further configured to recognize the
`
`unique identifier of the template, and . . . is further configured to adapt,
`
`before transmitting, the initial layout of the message in accordance with the
`
`recognized unique identifier and displaying capabilities of the destination
`
`communication device.” Ex. 1001, 6:5–12.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, 12, 17, 23, 28, 37, 39, 40, 41,
`
`and 42 are independent. Claims 1 and 42, reproduced below, are illustrative
`
`of the subject matter of the ’475 patent:
`
`1. A system for message communication via a communication
`media between one or more originating communication devices
`assigned
`to a
`sender and one or more destination
`communication devices assigned to a receiver, the system
`comprising:
`a) an access block configured to receive, directly or
`indirectly, from at least one originating communication device a
`message having initial characteristics comprising, at least
`message format and an initial message layout, and to transmit
`the message to at least one destination communication device;
`b) a media block operatively coupled to said access block
`and configured to select, before transmitting, at least one
`message format and a message layout for each of the at least
`one message formats fitting to each of said at least one
`destination device, and to then convert at least said initial
`message layout to the selected message layouts, said selection
`and conversion being done in accordance with at least one
`criterion selected from a group comprising:
`i) criterion related to message communication
`capabilities of the destination communication device with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`regard to message communication capabilities of the
`originating communication device;
`ii) criterion
`related
`to message displaying
`capabilities of the destination communication device with
`regard to message communication capabilities of the
`originating communication device; and
`iii) criterion related to the communication media.
`
`
`42. A method of message communication via a messaging
`system between one or more originating communication
`devices and one or more destination communication devices,
`the method comprising:
`a) before delivery to a destination communication device,
`obtaining by the messaging system, a message characterized, at
`least, by a message format and an initial message layout in the
`form of a template, said template characterized by at least
`unique identifier;
`b) obtaining information related to said unique identifier;
`
`and
`
`c) before delivery to the destination communication
`device, selecting at least one message format and a message
`layout for at least one message formats fitting to each of said at
`least one destination device, and converting the initial layout of
`the message to the selected message layout, said selection and
`conversion being done in accordance with at least one
`predefined layout corresponding to said unique identifier and to
`displaying capabilities of
`the destination communication
`device.
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Coulombe1
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 12, 23, 37,
`39, and 41
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0236892 A1, published. Dec. 25, 2003
`(Ex. 1003, “Coulombe”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Coulombe, Druyan,2 and Tittel3
`
`§ 103
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`6, 9, 17, 18,
`28, 40, and 42
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949 at *1 (Fed.
`
`Cir. July 8, 2015).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several terms, including,
`
`“message,” “block,” and “template.” Pet. 11–15. Based on the current
`
`record, we conclude that no express construction of these terms is necessary
`
`for the purposes of this decision.4
`
`
`2 US Patent No. 6,928,617 B2, issued Aug. 9, 2005 (Ex. 1004, “Druyan”).
`3 Ed Tittel et al., More HTML for Dummies (2d ed. 1997),
`(Ex. 1005, “Tittel”).
`4 Subsequent to the filing of the Petition and Preliminary Response in this
`proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an
`opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL
`3687459 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc in relevant part), which
`modified the law regarding when to treat a claim recitation as a means-plus-
`function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. At the initial conference call
`scheduled on the date indicated in the accompanying Scheduling Order, the
`parties should be prepared to discuss the impact of Williamson on this
`proceeding, including whether the terms “media block” and “access block”
`of claims 1 and 39, and “block” of claims 9 and 40 of the ‘475 patent should
`be interpreted as means-plus-function limitations pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112,
`sixth paragraph. See Williamson at *6–7. The parties also should be
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`B. Claims 1, 12, 23, 37, 39, and 41 — Obviousness over Coulombe (Ex.
`1003)
`
`1. Summary of Coulombe (Ex. 1003)
`
`Coulombe describes a system for adaptation of session initiate
`
`protocol (SIP) messages based on the recipient’s terminal capabilities and
`
`preferences. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Coulombe discloses that the described
`
`invention “tries to overcome the problem of interoperatibility between
`
`terminals and improve the end user experience by providing a framework for
`
`making SIP messages conform to the recipient’s terminal capability and
`
`characteristics.” Id. ¶ 7. For example, Coulombe describes message size
`
`reduction and format adaptation for delivery to the destination terminal. Id.
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a message flow for SIP message adaptation using system 10.
`
`System 10 includes SIP proxy/registrar 12, Capability Negotiation Manager
`
`16, and Message Adaptation Engine 20. Id. ¶ 54. Coulombe discloses that
`
`when new message 18 arrives at proxy/registrar 12 from another entity, such
`
`
`prepared to discuss whether additional briefing on the matter is warranted,
`and, if so, an appropriate briefing schedule.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`as sending terminal 19, proxy 12 obtains the terminal capabilities or user
`
`preferences of intended recipient’s terminal 15 already stored in the
`
`registrar, adapts the message (using Message Adaptation Engine 20), and
`
`sends adapted message 22 to recipient’s terminal 15. Id. ¶ 58. Capability
`
`Negotiation Manager 16 is responsible for resolving terminal capability
`
`information. Id. ¶ 59. Message Adaptation Engine 20 is responsible for
`
`adapting the message for recipient terminal 15 by performing format
`
`conversion, presentation adaptation, media characteristics adaptation,
`
`message size reduction, and encapsulation adaptation, as needed. Id. ¶¶ 63,
`
`85–91. Coulombe further teaches that “adaptation is any manipulation or
`
`modification of the message content based on the terminal capabilities, user
`
`preferences, network conditions, or any characteristics of the user, his
`
`terminal or his environment.” Id. ¶ 63.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 12, 23, 37, 39, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 based on Coulombe. Pet. 16–40. We have considered the arguments
`
`and evidence presented, and are persuaded that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its assertion that claims 1, 12, 23,
`
`37, 39, and 41 are unpatentable over Coulombe. Illustrative claim 1 is
`
`discussed below.
`
`Claim 1 is directed to a system for message communication that
`
`includes
`
`an access block configured to receive, directly or indirectly,
`from at least one originating communication device a message
`having initial characteristics comprising, at least message
`format and an initial message layout, and to transmit the
`message to at least one destination communication device.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Coulombe teaches these limitations because
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`Coulombe discloses SIP Proxy/Registrar 12 as a combination of hardware
`
`and software that receives a SIP message from a sending communication
`
`device 19. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 0092–0093, 0117, Fig. 1). Petitioner
`
`adds that Coulombe further discloses that SIP Proxy/Registrar 12 transmits
`
`the received SIP message to intended destination device 15 over signal line
`
`22 as shown in step “3” of Figure 1. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118, Fig. 1).
`
`Petitioner also asserts that Coulombe discloses the SIP message has a format
`
`and layout because Coulombe teaches that control 64 of Message Adaptation
`
`Engine 20 provides such characteristics (e.g., format, message size, and
`
`resolution) to means 68. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). Based on the
`
`current record, Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’475 Patent further recites
`
`a media block operatively coupled to said access block and
`configured to select, before transmitting, at least one message
`format and a message layout for each of the at least one
`message formats fitting to each of said at least one destination
`device, and to then convert at least said initial message layout
`to the selected message layouts, said selection and conversion
`being done in accordance with at least one criterion selected
`from a group comprising:
`
`
`communication
`to message
`related
`criterion
`i)
`capabilities of the destination communication device with
`regard to message communication capabilities of the originating
`communication device;
`
`ii) criterion related to message displaying capabilities of
`the destination communication device with regard to message
`communication capabilities of the originating communication
`device; and
`
`iii) criterion related to the communication media.
`
`
`
`For these limitations, Petitioner argues that Coulombe’s message
`
`adaptation engine teaches or suggests the recited media block. Pet. 23–32.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that Message Adaptation Engine 20 is operatively coupled
`
`to SIP Proxy/Registrar 12, and that means 68 of Message Adaptation Engine
`
`20 makes “a determination of what sort of adaptation or adaptations are
`
`required by comparing the capabilities or user preferences of the intended
`
`destination terminal 15 with the incoming message characteristics (e.g.,
`
`present resolution, format and size of images, size of the message, etc.) for
`
`each component thereof.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner argues that Coulombe teaches “[a]daptation
`
`operations are then performed on the message and its components by
`
`adaptation means 70 [of Message Adaptation Engine 20] to meet the
`
`registering terminal capabilities or user preferences.” Id. at 26.
`
`For the recited criteria, Petitioner argues that Coulombe discloses
`
`message layout adaptation based on: (1) image size supported by the
`
`destination terminal; (2) the destination device’s display capabilities; and (3)
`
`network characteristics such as network restrictions that may require
`
`message size reduction for the message to reach the destination terminal.
`
`Pet. 38–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 9, 43, 87, 89–90, 94–114, Fig. 1).
`
`
`
`Separately, Petitioner relies on the testimony of its declarant, Mr.
`
`David Klausner (Ex. 1002), to demonstrate that it would have been obvious
`
`to modify Coulombe to perform the recited selection and conversion based
`
`on any of the recited criterion. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 71).
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that “Coulombe recognizes that each one of
`
`the recited criterion (communication capabilities of the destination device,
`
`display capabilities of the destination device, and the communication media
`
`or network) may directly affect how a particular message must be adapted in
`
`order to be properly viewed by the destination device.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 7). Petitioner asserts Coulombe explains that message size reduction
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`may be required for the message to reach the destination terminal and
`
`message content must have the appropriate formats, characteristics (e.g.,
`
`image resolution or audio sampling rate), and presentation (looks good on
`
`the small display) for the destination terminal. Id. at 31–32. Thus,
`
`according to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that selection and conversion of the message for the destination
`
`device would have to take into account the communication and display
`
`capabilities of the destination device. Id.
`
`For the purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s arguments are
`
`persuasive. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that claim 1 would
`
`have been unpatentable over Coulombe. We also have reviewed Petitioner’s
`
`analysis and supporting evidence with respect to claims 12, 23, 37, 39, and
`
`41 (Pet. 32–40), and are persuaded Petitioner also has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground for claims 12, 23, 37, 39,
`
`and 41.
`
` With respect to claim 41, Patent Owner argues that the Petition does
`
`not properly address the recited limitations of claim 41 and improperly
`
`incorporates Mr. Klausner’s arguments. Prelim. Resp. 23. We disagree with
`
`Patent Owner’s characterization of the Petition. The Petition discerns the
`
`similarities of the limitations recited in claim 41 to those in claims 1 and 12,
`
`and, thus, applies to claim 41 the discussion of Coulombe provided for
`
`claims 1 and 12. Pet. 35; see Pet. 16–35. We do not agree with Patent
`
`Owner that the Petition’s citation to paragraphs 79 and 80 of Mr. Klausner’s
`
`declaration is improper. Paragraphs 79 and 80 provide supporting evidence
`
`for the argument presented in the Petition that claim 41 is materially the
`
`same as claims 1 and 12.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`C. Claims 6, 9, 17, 18, 28, 40, and 42 — Asserted Obviousness over
`Coulombe, Druyan (Ex. 1004), and Tittel (Ex. 1005)
`
`1. Summary of Druyan (Ex. 1004)
`
`Druyan is directed to web-browsing for handheld computerized
`
`devices. Ex. 1004, 1:8–10. Druyan discloses that portable devices, which
`
`Druyan refers to as “CLDs” (connected, limited devices) contain a display
`
`screen that “is typically smaller than the size of a desktop computer display
`
`screen.” Id. at 1:13–17, 1:25–27. Referring to Figures 1 and 3, Druyan
`
`discloses a technique for addressing this issue. Figure 3 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows master Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations
`
`(XSLT) style sheet file 230, which specifies the styling/layout of HTML
`
`document 240 and includes information 100 (shown in Fig. 1), optimized for
`
`display by a web browser on display screen 105 (shown in Fig. 1) of a
`
`desktop computer. Id. at 3:48–52. The information specified by XSLT style
`
`sheet file 230 exceeds an amount which CLD display screen 110 can display
`
`in one view. Id. at 3:52–55. Druyan discloses that to “optimize for the CLD
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`display screen 110, the information from the source document 210 is
`
`segmented by processor 220, responsive to style sheets 310, 320, and 330,
`
`into HTML documents 340, 350, and 360.” Id. at 3:55–59. Druyan further
`
`discloses that style sheets 310, 320, and 330 are “derived” from a master or
`
`parent XSLT style sheet file 230. Id. at 3:32–36.
`
`2. Summary of Tittel (Ex. 1005)
`
`Tittel generally describes HTML development and provides
`
`fundamental concepts of certain web technologies, in particular style sheets.
`
`Ex. 1005, 7–84. Tittel teaches “[s]tyle sheets are essentially collections of
`
`rules that tell a browser how a document should appear. As with all other
`
`things HTML, these rules have a specific syntax.” Ex. 1005, 59. Tittel
`
`further discloses a linking tag can be placed in the HTML code to identify an
`
`external style sheet file. Id. at 68.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner asserts claims 6, 9, 17, 18, 28, 40, and 42 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Coulombe, Druyan, and Tittel. Pet. 41–59. We
`
`have considered the arguments and evidence presented, and are persuaded
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its
`
`assertion that claims 6, 9, 17, 18, 28, 40, and 42 are unpatentable on this
`
`ground. Illustrative claim 6 is discussed below.
`
`Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1. For the limitations of
`
`claim 1 also required by claim 6, Petitioner relies on the disclosure of
`
`Coulombe, discussed above, to teach or suggest these limitations. Pet. 43.
`
`For the same reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive
`
`based on the current record.
`
`Claim 6 further requires that the system of claim 1 is configured to:
`
`receive a message having a layout based on a template, said
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`template characterized by at least a unique identifier, wherein
`the system is further configured to recognize the unique
`identifier of the template.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Coulombe does not expressly disclose a
`
`message that has a “layout based on a template, said template characterized
`
`by at least a unique identifier, wherein the system is further configured to
`
`recognize the unique identifier of the template.” Pet. 44. Nonetheless,
`
`Petitioner asserts that this feature would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art based on Coulombe, Druyan, and Tittel.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner asserts Druyan teaches a master style sheet (XSLT)
`
`file that is part of an HTML document and “specifies how to display the
`
`HTML document,” including the layout of the HTML document. Id. at 45
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 1:59–62). In addition, Petitioner relies on the testimony of
`
`Mr. Klausner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`style sheet files (e.g., master style sheet files) may be uniquely identified by
`
`names. Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). Petitioner argues this
`
`understanding is consistent with the disclosure in Tittel, which describes a
`
`linking tag that can be placed in the HTML code to identify an external style
`
`sheet by its uniform resource locator (URL). Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 59).
`
`Petitioner adds that “[w]hen the web browser encounters the <LINK> tag in
`
`the HTML document, it downloads the style sheet file specified in the URL
`
`in the <LINK> tag, and uses the downloaded style sheet to provide a correct
`
`layout for the display of the HTML document.” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 68–69; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105). Based on the current record, Petitioner’s
`
`arguments are persuasive.
`
`Petitioner further argues that Druyan discloses “wherein the system is
`
`further configured to recognize the unique identifier of the template” as
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`recited in claim 6. Pet. 49–50. Petitioner argues that this limitation would
`
`have been obvious because Druyan discloses the process of creating a series
`
`of derivative style sheets based on the initial master style sheet file. Id. at
`
`49. According to Petitioner, this process requires making copies of the
`
`master XSLT style sheet, which would require recognizing the style sheet’s
`
`unique identifier in order to retrieve the initial style sheet file and create
`
`corresponding derivative style sheets from the master style sheet file. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114; Ex. 1004 3:62–4:5). For the purposes of this
`
`decision, Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive.
`
`Claim 6 further requires that the
`
`media block is further configured to select, before transmitting,
`at least one message format and a message layout for each of
`the at least one message formats fitting to each of said at least
`one destination device, and then convert the initial layout of the
`message to the selected message layouts.
`
`For these limitations, Petitioner relies on the teachings of Coulombe
`
`discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 50. These arguments are persuasive based
`
`on the current record.
`
`Claim 6 also recites
`
`said selection and conversion being done in accordance with at
`least one predefined layout corresponding to the recognized
`unique
`identifier and
`the displaying capabilities of
`the
`destination communication device.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the “predefined layout corresponding to the recognized
`
`unique identifier” is taught by Druyan’s derivative style sheet file, which is
`
`based on a copy of the initial master style sheet. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1002
`
`¶117). Petitioner further explains that the derivative style sheet file,
`
`disclosed in Druyan, is based on a copy of the initial (master) style sheet file,
`
`which, as Petitioner argued previously, may include a link tag as disclosed in
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`Tittel. See id. at 52. At this stage in the proceeding, Petitioner’s arguments
`
`are persuasive.
`
`
`
`In response, Patent Owner first contends that the Petition relies on
`
`conclusory statements regarding obviousness and does not explain why one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Coulombe, Druyan, and
`
`Tittel. Prelim. Resp. 10–15. According to Patent Owner, the Petition does
`
`not identify specifically which teachings of Druyan and Tittel are relied
`
`upon and how those features are being utilized with no change in their
`
`respective functions. Id. at 12. Patent Owner further argues that the Petition
`
`does not explain how external style sheets would be incorporated into
`
`Coulombe’s system such that the message layout would be converted by
`
`Coulombe’s SIP Proxy/Registrar. Id. at 13. Additionally, Patent Owner
`
`urges that we disregard paragraphs 110–113 of Mr. Klausner’s declaration
`
`because these are not discussed in the Petition. Id. at 15.
`
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`articulated sufficient reasons to combine Coulombe, Druyan, and Tittel. Pet.
`
`47–50 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 107–113). For example, the Petition explains that
`
`Tittel provides express motivation to use a link tag with style sheets (e.g.,
`
`Druyan’s disclosed style sheet files) to allow the reuse of the same style
`
`sheet across multiple Web documents. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 108). In
`
`addition, Petitioner explains that “Druyan and Coulombe are analogous
`
`references in the same field of converting messages (such as HTML
`
`documents) into a form that can be displayed on smaller devices with
`
`reduced screen sizes” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`found no technological obstacle to, and no teaching away from, adapting the
`
`style sheet teachings of Druyan and Tittel to the SIP messaging system of
`
`Coulombe.” Id. at 48–49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 109–113). Further, we do not
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`agree with Patent Owner that we must discount paragraphs 110–113 of Mr.
`
`Klausner’s declaration. These paragraphs are cited as supporting evidence
`
`for arguments that are presented and explained in the Petition.
`
`Next, Patent Owner argues that none of the references teach sending
`
`SIP messages that include a style sheet file identified by its URL. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 16–18. Patent Owner argues that “[a]bsent a teaching that the sending
`
`devices of the Coulombe were capable of sending SIP messages that
`
`included a style sheet identified by its URL, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`modification of the Coulombe SIP Proxy/Registrar to receive such
`
`messaging amounts to added functionality that would have no use.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 17–18.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`made a sufficient threshold showing that the required modifications are
`
`within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 47–49. “A
`
`person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). The
`
`reason to combine teachings from the prior art “may be found in explicit or
`
`implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary
`
`knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be
`
`solved.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`Thus, based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`provided sufficient evidence demonstrating why a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been motivated to combine Coulombe’s SIP message
`
`system with the style sheet files of Druyan and Tittel.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner ignores the differences
`
`between SIP messaging (Coulombe) and web browsing (Druyan and Tittel),
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`which show that a skilled artisan would not have modified Coulombe to add
`
`a “useless capability.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 0004–0011). To
`
`the extent that Coulombe discusses dif
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
