Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`DOCKET NO: 1152975-00249US2
`Filed on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc. and AVAYA Inc. by:
`Lead Counsel
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`[see firm contact information above]
`Email: jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`Joseph C. Kirincich, Reg. No. 38,734
`AVAYA Inc.
`211 Mt. Airy Road
`Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
`Tel: (908) 953-8623
`Fax: (203) 564-0222
`Email: jckirincich@avaya.com
`
`
`Backup Counsel for AVAYA
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and AVAYA INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2015-1007
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-80, 42.100 et seq.
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS .................................. 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b) ........................................ 1
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ................................................................ 1
`2.
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel ......................................................... 5
`4.
`Power of Attorney and Service Information ............................... 6
`Proof of Service ..................................................................................... 6
`B.
`C. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 6
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 .................................... 6
`III.
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................... 7
`A. Microsoft Windows NT Server version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP (“Microsoft
`Manual”) (Exhibit 1012) ....................................................................... 7
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB,
`Version 2 (“NetBIOS”) (Exhibit 1014) ................................................. 8
`C. U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1020) .................................. 10
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021) ................................... 10
`E.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Exhibit 1015) ......................... 12
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 13
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’469 PATENT ........................................................... 13
`A.
`Point-to-Point Communications .......................................................... 19
`B.
`Look-Up Tables ................................................................................... 21
`C.
`Prior Proceedings ................................................................................ 22
`1.
`Prosecution of the ’469 Patent .................................................. 22
`2.
`The Sipnet Inter Partes Review ................................................. 24
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 24
`A.
`“point-to-point communication[s]” (claims 1, 5) / “point-to-point
`communication link” (claims 2-3, 9) .................................................. 25
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`“network protocol address” (Claims 1, 5, 9) ....................................... 27
`“connected to the computer network” (claims 3, 6) / “connection to the
`computer network” (claim 5) / “on-line status” (claim 9) .................. 28
`“accessible” (claim 9) .......................................................................... 35
`“determining the currently assigned network protocol address of the
`first process upon connection to the computer network” (claims 1, 5)35
`“unique identifier” (claim 1) ............................................................... 36
`F.
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONER WILL
`PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’469
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 37
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, AND 17-18 ................................................ 37
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`rendered obvious by the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS ....... 37
`B. Ground 2: Claims 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS and Palmer ...... 48
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 9, and 14 are obvious under § 103 over the
`Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer, and Pinard .............. 54
`D. Ground 4: The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer, Pinard,
`and Pitkin renders claims 3, 6, and 9 obvious under § 103................. 58
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ex parte Papst-Motoren,
`1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) .................................................. 25
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................................... 39, 58
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc., v. Bandwidth.com, Inc., et al.,
`1:13-cv-932 (E.D. Va.) ....................................................................................... 26
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ..................................................................................................... 7, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311-19 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1011
`
`DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`File History for Reexamination Control No. 90/010422
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Intentionally Omitted
`Declaration of Robert Cowart
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704, filed by
`Sipnet EU S.R.O.
`Institution Decision in Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group,
`Inc., IPR No. 2013-00246 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013)
`1009 Markman Order, Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v.
`Stalker Software, Inc., 2:12-cv-00009-RGD-TEM, ECF No. 48 (E.D.
`Va. Oct. 26, 2012)
`1010 Markman Order, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Bandwidth.com, Inc.,
`et al., 1:13-cv-00932-AJT-IDD, Docket No. 107 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25,
`2014)
`Deposition Transcript of Shane Mattaway from Net2Phone v. eBay et
`al. (2-06-cv-02469 (D.N.J.)
`1012 Microsoft Windows NT version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP
`1013
`Droms, R., Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, RFC 1541 (Oct.
`1993)
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB,
`Version 2
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”)
`Comer, D.E., “Internetworking with TCP/IP, Vol. 1, Principles,
`Protocol, and Architecture, Second Edition,” (New Jersey: Prentice
`Hall, 1991)
`Postel, J., Ed., Transmission Control Protocol, DARPA Internet
`Program Protocol Specification, RFC 793 (September 1981)
`Postel, J., Ed., Internet Protocol, DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification, RFC 791 (September 1981)
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,068 (Palmer)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110 (Pinard)
`File history for Reexamination Control No. No. 90/010416
`“Patent Owner’s Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120,” in Case
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`DESCRIPTION
`IPR2013-00246, filed April 11, 2013
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`Preliminary Response for Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00231
`(filed December 5, 2013)
`“NT pricing: low-cost OS, Back Office ‘gotchas,’” PC Week, Vol. 11
`Issue 37 (Sept. 19, 1994)
`“Company News; Microsoft to Introduce New Windows NT,” New
`York Times (Sept. 17, 1994)
`“Beta users wowed by Dayton’s speed,” Network World (May 16,
`1994)
`Online Copyright Registration Record for “Microsoft Windows NT
`server : network operating system : version 3.5”
`Network Working Group, Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on
`a TCP/UDP Transports: Concepts and Methods, RFC 1001 (March
`1987)
`Network Working Group, Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on
`a TCP/UDP Transport: Detailed Specifications
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza
`
`- vi -
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and AVAYA Inc. (“Avaya,” and collectively
`
`with Cisco, “Petitioner”) hereby request that the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office proceed with an inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 (“the ’469 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`Cisco and AVAYA are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters
`
`2.
`The following would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`(1)
`
`Petitioner’s inter partes review petitions contesting the validity of
`
`claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 (’121 patent”) and claims
`
`1, 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (’704 patent”)
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner’s Related Petitions”). The ’469 and ’121 patents are
`
`continuations-in-part of the ’704 patent.
`
`(2)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et
`
`al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. reviewing ’704 patent claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16,
`
`22-23, 27, and 30-31 (IPR2014-01366, instituted March 6, 2015); ’469 patent claims
`
`1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 (IPR2014-01367, instituted March 6, 2015); and ’121
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`patent claims 6, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 (IPR2014-01368, instituted March 6, 2015)
`
`(collectively, the “Samsung IPRs”).
`
`(3)
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., No. 15-1212 (Fed.
`
`Cir.), which is the appeal from the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
`
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2013-00246 (instituted Oct.
`
`11, 2013) (reviewing ’704 patent claims 1-7 and 32-42) (the “Sipnet IPR”).
`
`(4)
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-04312 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Sept. 24, 2014;
`
`complaint served Sept. 30, 2014) in which Straight Path IP Group, Inc., asserted
`
`against Cisco the ’704 patent, the ’469 patent, the ’121 patent, and an additional
`
`member of the ’704 patent family, U.S. Patent No. 6,701,365 (the “’365 patent”)
`
`(dismissed without prejudice on December 24, 2014 by agreement of the parties).
`
`(5)
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-04309 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Sept. 24, 2014;
`
`complaint served Sept. 30, 2014), in which Straight Path IP Group, Inc. asserted
`
`against AVAYA the ’704 patent, ’469 patent, ’121 patent, and ’365 patent
`
`(dismissed without prejudice on December 24, 2014 by agreement of the parties).
`
`(6)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings LG Elecs., Inc., et al. v.
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. seeking review of certain claims of the ’469 patent
`
`(IPR2015-00198), the ’121 patent (IPR2015-00196), and the ’704 patent
`
`(IPR2015-00209) (all filed on August 1, 2014 and currently awaiting decision as to
`
`whether to institute a trial).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`(7)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings Sony Corp., et al. v.
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. seeking review of the ’121 patent (IPR2013-00229),
`
`the ’469 patent (IPR2014-00231), and the ’704 patent (IPR2014-00230) (all filed on
`
`Dec. 5, 2013 and terminated on May 2, 2014 on joint motions after the filing of the
`
`Patent Owner preliminary response, but prior to a decision whether to institute a
`
`trial).
`
`(8)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings Netflix, Inc., et al. v.
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. seeking review of certain claims of the ’704 patent
`
`(IPR2014-01241) (filed on August 1, 2014 and terminated on October 30, 2014 on a
`
`joint motion made prior to filing of the Patent Owner’s preliminary response).
`
`(9)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings Vonage Holdings Corp., et
`
`al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. seeking review of certain claims of the ’469
`
`patent (IPR2014-01225); the ’121 patent (IPR2014-01234); the ’365 patent
`
`(IPR2014-01224); and an additional patent in the ’704 patent family, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,513,066 (IPR2014-01223) (all filed on August 1, 2014 and terminated on
`
`October 30, 2014 on joint motions made prior to filing of the Patent Owner’s
`
`preliminary response).
`
`(10) Actions in which Straight Path (or one of its predecessors-in-interest)
`
`has asserted the ’469 patent, including Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Communications, Inc. et al., 1-14-cv-07798 (S.D. N.Y.); Straight Path IP Group,
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3-14-cv-04302 (N.D. Cal.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., 6-13-cv-00606 (E.D. Tex.); Straight Path IP Group,
`
`Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al. 6-14-cv-00534 (E.D.Tx.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`v. Netflix, Inc.,. 6-14-cv-00405 (E.D.Tx.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. ZTE Corp.
`
`et al., 6-13-cv-00607 (E.D. Tex.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Huawei
`
`Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al., 6-13-cv-00605 (E.D. Tex.); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al., 6-13-cv-00604 (E.D. Tex.); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp. et al., 1-13-cv-01070 (E.D. Va.); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp. et al., 3-13-cv-00503 (E.D. Va.); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am. Et al., 1-13-cv-00935 (E.D. Va.); Straight
`
`Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sharp Corp. et al., 1-13-cv-00936 (E.D. Va.); Straight Path
`
`IP Group, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al., 1-13-cv-00933 (E.D. Va.); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al., 2-13-cv-00427 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path IP Group,
`
`Inc. v. Vizio, Inc. et al., 1-13-cv-00934 (E.D.Va.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v.
`
`Sony Corp. et al., 1-13-cv-01071 (E.D. Va.); Innovative Communications
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Vivox, Inc., 2-12-cv-00007 (E.D. Va.); Innovative
`
`Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Stalker Software, Inc. et al., 2-12-cv-00009
`
`(E.D. Va); Net2phone, Inc. v. Ebay, Inc. et al., 2-06-cv-02469 (D.N.J.); Net2phone,
`
`Inc. v. Ebay, Inc., et al., 4-10-cv-04090 (W.D. Ark.); and Point-to-Point Network
`
`Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA-892 (I.T.C.).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`Because, this petition and Petitioner’s Related Petitions are identical in
`
`substance to the petitions underlying the Samsung IPRs, Petitioner is filing Motions
`
`for Joinder with the Samsung IPRs. In the alternative, Petitioner requests that, for
`
`efficiency and consistency, the panel assigned to the Samsung IPRs also be assigned
`
`to address this petition and Petitioner’s Related Petitions; or, in the alternative, that
`
`the same panel be assigned to this petition and Petitioner’s Related Petitions.
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`
`jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`Backup Counsel for AVAYA:
`
`Joseph C. Kirincich, Reg. No. 38,734
`
`Post and hand delivery for Petitioner: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
`
`jckirincich@avaya.com
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone for Petitioner:
`
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`
`Fax for Petitioner:
`
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`Power of Attorney and Service Information
`
`4.
`Petitioner has submitted power of attorney letters with this petition. Counsel
`
`for Petitioner consents to service of all documents via electronic mail and further
`
`consents to service of any documents via hand delivery to the postal mailing address
`
`of lead counsel designated above.
`
`Proof of Service
`
`B.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition in
`
`its entirety is being served to the Patent Owner’s attorney of record at the address
`
`listed in the USPTO’s records by overnight courier pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e).
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the Petitioner certifies that the ’469
`
`patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition. Neither Cisco nor AVAYA has filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of a claim of the ’469 patent.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37. C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 of the ’469 patent is requested in view
`
`of the following grounds. The grounds for cancellation of the challenged claims are
`
`not redundant because they are based on different technical contexts.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`(1)
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 17 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Microsoft Windows NT Server version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP (“Microsoft
`
`Manual”) (Ex. 1012), or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
`
`Microsoft Manual in view of Technical Standard - Protocols for X/Open PC
`
`Interworking: SMB, Version 2 (“NetBIOS”) (Ex. 1014).
`
`(2)
`
`Claims 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS and U.S. Patent No. U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1020).
`
`(3)
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 14 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS and Palmer and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021).
`
`(4)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer, Pinard, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Ex. 1015).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Microsoft Windows NT Server version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP
`(“Microsoft Manual”) (Exhibit 1012)
`
`The Microsoft Manual was published by September 1994 and is prior art
`
`under at least § 102(a). (Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 6, 9-11; see also Exs. 1027-1030.) The
`
`Microsoft Manual was not cited in the original prosecution or reexamination of the
`
`’469 patent.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`The Microsoft Manual generally describes the Windows NT operating
`
`system’s TCP/IP networking capabilities, including Dynamic Host Configuration
`
`Protocol (DHCP) and Windows Internet Name Service (WINS). (Ex. 1012 at 4 and
`
`11-13). DHCP dynamically assigns IP addresses to computers, (Ex. 1012 at 62-64
`
`and 81-121), and WINS is a look-up table that maps computer names to IP
`
`addresses. (Ex. 1012 at 65-69 and at 122-167). The Microsoft Manual explains an
`
`important benefit of using DHCP and WINS:
`
`Furthermore, when dynamic addressing through DHCP results in
`
`new IP addresses for computers that move between subnets, the
`
`changes are automatically updated in the WINS database.
`
`Neither the user nor the network administrator needs to make
`
`manual accommodations for name resolution in such a case.
`
`(Ex. 1012 at 65; see also id. at 73 (“Although DNS may seem similar to WINS, there
`
`is a major difference: DNS requires static configuration for computer name- to-IP
`
`address mapping, while WINS is fully dynamic and requires far less
`
`administration.”).
`
`B.
`
`Technical Standard: Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking:
`SMB, Version 2 (“NetBIOS”) (Exhibit 1014)
`
`Network Basic Input/Output System (NetBIOS) is an interface and service
`
`first developed in the early 1980s that allows applications on different computers to
`
`communicate across a computer network, such as a local area network or the
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`Internet. (Ex. 1014 at 375, 378; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 84.). In March 1987, the IETF
`
`published RFC 1001, which “describes the ideas and general methods used to
`
`provide NetBIOS on a TCP and UDP foundation,” (Ex. 1014 at 375), and RFC 1002,
`
`which “contains the detailed packet formats and protocol specifications for
`
`NetBIOS-over-TCP.” (Ex. 1014 at 443).1 In 1992, RFCs 1001 and 1002 were
`
`published as Appendices F and G in Technical Standard -Protocols for X/Open PC
`
`Interworking: SMB, Version 2 (Ex. 1014 at 368-437 (Appendix F) and 438-523
`
`(Appendix G)). Thus, NetBIOS is prior art under at least §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`NetBIOS teaches point-to-point communications between nodes over a
`
`network, including between “[p]oint-to-point (or ‘P’) nodes,” (Ex. 1014 at 385), that
`
`use a directory look-up service called a “NetBIOS Name Server” (NBNS), (Ex.
`
`1014 at 386-87). For example, the figure below shows “P”-nodes connected to the
`
`“Internet” (two directly and three through a gateway, “G’WAY”), each of which can
`
`communicate with a NBNS that also is connected to the Internet:
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1014 was relied upon for reexamination of the ’121 patent. Exhibit 1014
`
`incorporates as appendices Exhibits 1031and 1032. Citations to the appendices
`
`found in Exhibit 1014 are interchangeable with Exhibits 1031 and 1032.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1014 at 390).
`C. U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1020)
`Palmer was filed on June 3, 1992, and issued on December 20, 1994, so it is
`
`prior art under §§ 102(a) and 102(e). Palmer was not cited in the original
`
`prosecution or reexamination of the ’469 patent.
`
`Palmer describes a videoconferencing application that can run on an IBM PC
`
`running the Microsoft Windows NT operating system, (Ex. 1020 at 7:5-11), that
`
`“us[es] standard digital network transport level protocols such as Internet TCP/IP
`
`and UDP/IP.” (Ex. 1020 at 5:33-37). Any application that ran on Windows NT
`
`could use TCP/IP and the Windows Sockets API to resolve computer names into IP
`
`address using the WINS server. (Ex. 1012 at 10, 18-21, and 58-60).
`
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021)
`Pinard was filed on November 29, 1994, and is therefore prior art under
`
`102(e). During the original prosecution, the examiner cited Pinard, but did not
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`discuss Pinard or reject any claim in whole or in part based on Pinard. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`364). In the ex parte reexamination, rejections involving Pinard were withdrawn for
`
`reasons unrelated to Pinard, including a procedural technicality related to
`
`VocalChat. (Ex. 1003 at 171-72).
`
`Pinard discloses a graphical interface for “any system in which a telephony
`
`application on a personal computer ... in conjunction with a server operates.” (Ex.
`
`1021 at 2:44-46.) Pinard also discloses how icons can be dragged and dropped to
`
`control active calls; for example, during the phone call between Debbie and Mary, as
`
`seen in Fig. 12, “[t]o place Mary on hard hold, Debbie drags Mary’s icon 28 to hard
`
`hold icon 39.” (Ex. 1021 at 6:40-41; see also id. at Figs. 2-14, and 2:54-58
`
`(explaining that “[t]he state of the call can be changed merely by dragging icons to
`
`particular locations on the display” which “allows changing of the status of lines
`
`associated with parties to the call with certainty”)).
`
`Further, Pinard discloses that if Debbie wishes to add Mary to her ongoing
`
`call with John to create a conference call with Debbie, Mary, and John, she drags her
`
`icon to call setup icon 24, which places the line connected to the user John on hold
`
`(shown in Figure 4), drags Mary’s icon from directory 17 to call setup icon 24
`
`(shown in Figure 6), and drags John’s icon 21 to call icon 29 (Ex. 1021 at 5:5-37).
`
`Alternatively, she can establish separate calls with Mary and John, but switch
`
`between them, by dragging her icon back-and-forth, during which “the other party is
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`placed on hold.” (Id., 5:5-61, see also id. 1:55-61 (“The present invention ...
`
`provides a method for calls to be made between parties, to be placed on hold, to be
`
`dropped from hold, to be conferenced or to be dropped from a conference with clear
`
`indication to the user which of the parties to any call are being dealt with.”); id. at
`
`6:6-10, Fig. 7 (call waiting icon)).
`
`E. U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Exhibit 1015)
`Pitkin was filed on August 6, 1993 and issued on August 23, 1994, and is thus
`
`prior art to the ’469 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Pitkin discloses a computer network having a “broker mechanism [that]
`
`allocates a plurality of servers, each having an available resource capacity, to a
`
`plurality of clients for delivering one of several services to the clients.” (Ex. 1015 at
`
`Abstract.) The broker mechanism is responsible for “monitoring a subset of all
`
`available servers capable of delivering the requested service.” (Id.) In particular, the
`
`’477 patent discloses that communication paths between the broker and the plurality
`
`of servers “allow[s] the broker to poll each coupled server (22, 23, 24, 26) to receive
`
`its status. The status of the servers 22, 23, 24, and 26 is stored in connection entries
`
`922, 923, 924 and 926, respectively, within the server status block.” (Id. at 6:56-61.)
`
`In other words, a broker, or central server, sends messages (polls) to other servers
`
`(processes) within a computer network to determine the current status of each server
`
`within the computer network. (See id. at 2:36-38 (“The present invention is a broker
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`method and apparatus which . . . monitors the dynamic status of a set of servers ....”);
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 107.)
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’469 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or a related degree, and several years of experience in
`
`telecommunications and data networking. This person would have been capable of
`
`understanding and applying the prior art references discussed herein. (Ex. 1004 at
`
`¶¶ 16-18.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’469 PATENT
`The ’469 patent is generally directed towards Internet telephony protocols for
`
`establishing point-to-point communication connections between “processing units”
`
`or “processes” over a computer network. (Ex. 1001 at Title, Abstract). The patent
`
`discloses two protocols to establish a connection. The first protocol registers users’
`
`email and IP addresses with a centralized database so that other users may “query”
`
`the database for the IP address associated with another user’s email address in order
`
`to establish a point-to-point connection (a “look-up” protocol), (id. at Figs. 7-8 and
`
`6:66-7:59), and the second protocol uses E-mail signals to transmit a user’s IP
`
`address to other users (an “email” protocol), (Id. at Figs. 2 & 4 and 7:60-9:24).
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`Because all of the challenged claims relate to the look-up protocol, the email
`
`protocol is not discussed in any depth.
`
`The specification refers to “processing units” and the claims as filed referred
`
`to “computers” and “processors.” and were later amended to claim “processes.” (Ex.
`
`1002 at 368-372). However, the claims were amended during prosecution to claim
`
`“processes.”
`
`Whether between processing units or processes, each of the challenged
`
`independent claims (1, 5, and 9) follows the same general steps illustrated in Figure
`
`8 to establish a connection:
`
`
`Columns 6 and 7 of the ’469 patent describes the steps in Fig. 8. When a
`
`processing unit “logs on to the Internet ... [it] is provided a dynamically allocated IP
`
`address by a connection service provider.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:62-65). In Step 64 of Fig.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`8, a user starts up their client process, which “automatically transmits its associated
`
`E-mail address and its dynamically allocated IP address to the connection server
`
`26.” (Id. at 6:66-7:3; see also at 12:13-18). In Step 66 of Fig. 8, the connection
`
`server “stores these addresses in the database 34 and timestamps the stored
`
`addresses using timer 32.” (Id. at 7:3-5; see also at 12:15-18). “The connection
`
`server 26 includes a processor 30, a timer 32 for generating timestamps, and a
`
`memory such as a database 34 for storing, for example, E-mail and Internet Protocol
`
`(IP) addresses of logged-in units.” (Id. at 4:59-62). The user is “thus established in
`
`the database 34 as an active on-line party available for communication using the
`
`disclosed point-to-point Internet protocol.” (Ex. 1001 at 7:5-9). In other words,
`
`users of the claimed point-to-point Internet protocol transmit their email and IP
`
`addresses to the connection server to log in and indicate that they are online,
`
`connected to the network, and available to connect at that IP address.
`
`After registering with the connection server, users may select the second user
`
`with whom they want to establish a connection in at least four ways (i) manually
`
`entering the second user’s “name or alias or IP address, if known,” (ii) “using the
`
`speed dial feature,” (iii) “double clicking on an entry in a directory,” or (iv) dragging
`
`and dropping the second user’s icon onto a line’s icon. (Ex. 1001 at 11:19-35; see
`
`also id.at 7:20-29).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`
`After selecting a second user, the first user’s client process “sends a query,
`
`including the E-mail address of the [second user], to the connection server 26.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 7:30-31). In Step 68 of Fig. 8, the s