UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA
`CORPORATION, AND VIZIO, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`
`By: Rajeev Gupta, Reg. No. 55,873
`
`Darren M. Jiron, Reg. No. 45,777
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile:
`202-408-4400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`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 ....................................................................................... 2
`3.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel ................................................................... 4
`4.
`Power of Attorney and Service Information ..................................... 5
`Proof of Service ................................................................................................. 5
`B.
`C. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 5
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(B) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`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
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,068 (“Palmer”) (Ex. 1020) ............................................. 9
`C.
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021) ............................................ 10
`E.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,341,477 (“Pitkin”) (Exhibit 1015) ................................. 11
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................. 12
`SUMMARY OF THE ’469 PATENT ..................................................................... 12
`A.
`Point-to-Point Communications ................................................................... 18
`B.
`Look-Up Tables ............................................................................................... 19
`C.
`Prior Proceedings ............................................................................................. 20
`1.
`Prosecution of the ’469 Patent ........................................................... 20
`The Sipnet Inter Partes Review ............................................................ 21
`2.
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 22
`A.
`“point-to-point communication[s]” (claims 1, 5) / “point-
`to-point communication link” (claims 2-3, 9) ............................................. 22
`
`B.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
` i
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`“network protocol address” (Claims 1, 5, 9) ............................................... 24
`“connected to the computer network” (claims 3, 6) /
`“connection to the computer network” (claim 5) / “on-line
`status” (claim 9) ................................................................................................ 25
`“accessible” (claim 9) ....................................................................................... 31
`“determining the currently assigned network protocol
`address of the first process upon connection to the
`computer network” (claims 1, 5) ................................................................... 32
`“unique identifier” (claim 1) ........................................................................... 33
`F.
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`PETITIONER WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT
`LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’469 PATENT ................................................... 33
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, AND 17-
`18 .................................................................................................................................... 34
`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. ......................................................................... 34
`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. ..................................................................................... 43
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 9, and 14 are obvious under § 103
`over the Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS, Palmer,
`and Pinard ......................................................................................................... 48
`D. Ground 4: The Microsoft Manual in view of NetBIOS,
`Palmer, Pinard, and Pitkin renders claims 3, 6, and 9
`obvious under § 103 ........................................................................................ 52
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 54
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Ex parte Papst-Motoren
`1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) ............................................................ 22
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................................... 35, 52
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................................... 5, 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311-319 ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................................... 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................................... 54
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2143 ....................................................................................................................... 52
`
`
`
` iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`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)
`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)
`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.)
`Microsoft Windows NT version 3.5 TCPIP.HLP
`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)
`
` i
`
`EXHIBIT
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`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 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
`Petitioner LGE’s Declaration Regarding Peal Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner Toshiba’s Declaration Regarding Peal Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner VIZIO’s Declaration Regarding Peal Party-in-Interest
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”), Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”),
`
`and VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”) respectfully submit this petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 concurrently with a Motion for Joinder, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), with pending IPR, Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2014-01367 (“the Samsung IPR”), instituted
`
`on March 6, 2015.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`1.
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., Toshiba America, Inc., and VIZIO, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`For completeness, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) took no part in the preparation,
`
`funding, or control of the present Petition. Indeed, as explained in the Petitioners’
`
`Decls. (Exhibits 1034-36), Hulu has not even seen a draft of the present Petition or
`
`supporting declarations, nor has Hulu funded, in any part, the preparation of this
`
`Petition.1 Accordingly, Hulu is not a real party-in-interest in this Petition.
`
`
`1 Petitioners acknowledge that Hulu has likely seen the now publicly available
`
`Samsung IPR and its supporting declarations.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Moreover, Petitioners’ interest in defending against the ’469 patent and seeking
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`its cancellation extends beyond that of Hulu’s. Patent Owner’s accusations in the
`
`related litigations include functionality that is not provided by Hulu. Thus, whether
`
`Hulu has an obligation to defend or indemnify some of the claims asserted by Patent
`
`Owner is not determinative as Petitioners have an independent interest in seeking
`
`cancellation of the ’469 patent.
`
`Additionally, while Petitioners believe that Patent Owner’s arguments related to
`
`Hulu being barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) in IPR2015-00198 are without merit, in
`
`the case that the Board finds Patent Owner’s argument persuasive, Petitioners would
`
`be left with no avenue to challenge the ’469 patent in an Inter Partes Review. Thus,
`
`this action is taken in accordance with Petitioners’ interests that are independent of
`
`and extend beyond those of Hulu.
`
`2.
`The following would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`Related Matters
`
`(1)
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2014-01367 (instituted) and IPR2015-00198
`
`(pending), both contesting, as this petition does, the validity of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10,
`
`14, and 17-18 of the ’469 patent, as well as IPR2014-00231 (not instituted) and
`
`IPR2014-01225 (settled), which challenged the ’469 patent;
`
`(2)
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2013-00246 (“the Sipnet IPR”), in which the
`
`Board issued a final decision holding unpatentable claims 1-7 and 32-42 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704 patent”), and Court of Appeals Docket No. 15-1212 (Fed.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Cir.) (pending), in which the Patent Owner appeals from the Board’s decision. The
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`’469 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’704 patent.
`
`(3)
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2014-01366 (instituted), contesting the validity of
`
`claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 of the ’704 patent, and IPR2015-00209
`
`(pending), contesting the validity of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31
`
`of the ’704 patent, as well as IPR2014-00230 (not instituted) and IPR2014-01241
`
`(settled), which challenged the ’704 patent.
`
`(4)
`
`Inter Partes Review proceedings IPR2014-01368 (instituted), contesting
`
`the validity of claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 (“the ’121
`
`patent”), and IPR2015-00196 (pending), contesting the validity of claims 3, 4, and 6-
`
`14 of the ’121 patent, as well as IPR2014-00229 (not instituted) and IPR2014-01234
`
`(settled), which challenged the ’121 patent. The ’121 patent is a continuation-in-part
`
`of the ’704 patent.
`
`(5) Certain Point-To-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing
`
`Same, U.S. Internal Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-892 (terminated).
`
`(6) U.S. district court actions in which the Patent Owner asserted the ’469,
`
`’704, and ’121 patents against LG, Toshiba, and VIZIO, including 1:13-cv-00934
`
`(VIZIO), which consolidated 1:13-cv-00933 (LG) and 1:13-cv-01070 (Toshiba), as
`
`well as 1:13-cv-00935, 1:13-cv-00936, and 1:13-cv-01071.
`
`(7) U.S. district court actions in which one or more of the ’469, ’704, and
`
`’121 patents are at issue, including in the Eastern District of Virginia (2:12-cv-00007;
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`2:12-cv-00009; 2:14-cv-00233; 2:13-cv-00427; 3:13-cv-00503), Eastern District of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`Texas (6:13-cv-00604; 6:13-cv-00605; 6:13-cv-00606; 6:13-cv-00607, 6:14-cv-00405;
`
`6:14-cv-00534), Northern District of California (3:14-cv-04302; 3:14-cv-04309; 3:14-
`
`cv-04312; 5:14-cv-04561), Southern District of New York (1:14-cv-07798); District of
`
`New Jersey (2:06-cv-02469); and Western District of Arkansas (4:10-cv-04090).
`
`Because the ’121, ’469 and ’704 patents are substantively similar, Petitioners
`
`request that, for efficiency and consistency, the Sipnet IPR panel be assigned to
`
`address Petitioners’ Inter Partes Review petitions for the ’121, ’469 and ’704 patents; or,
`
`in the alternative, that the same panel be assigned to all three.
`
`3.
`For Petitioner LGE, lead counsel is Rajeev Gupta (Reg. No. 55,873,
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`raj.gupta@finnegan.com), and backup counsel is Darren M. Jiron (Reg. No. 45,777,
`
`darren.jiron@finnegan.com). The mailing address for all PTAB correspondence is
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP, 901
`
`New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 (Telephone: 202-408-4000 /
`
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400).
`
`For Petitioner Toshiba, lead counsel is Paul T. Meiklejohn (Reg. No. 26,569,
`
`meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com), and backup counsel are Clint Conner (Reg. No.
`
`52,764, conner.clint@dorsey.com) and Jennifer Spaith (Reg. No. 51,916,
`
`spaith.jennifer@dorsey.com). The mailing address for all PTAB correspondence is
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`Seattle, WA 98104-704350 (Telephone: 612-340-2600 / Facsimile: 612-340-2868).
`
`For Petitioner VIZIO, lead counsel is Kevin O’Brien (Reg. No. 30,578,
`
`kevin.o’brien@bakermckenzie.com) and backup counsel is Richard V. Wells (Reg.
`
`No. 53,757, richard.wells@bakermckenzie.com). The mailing address for all PTAB
`
`correspondence is BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP, 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
`
`Washington, D.C. 20006 (Telephone: 202-452-7000 / Facsimile: 202-452-7074).
`
`4.
`Petitioners have submitted powers of attorney with this petition. Counsel for
`
`Power of Attorney and Service Information
`
`Petitioners consent to service of all documents via electronic mail and further consent
`
`to service of any documents via hand delivery to the postal mailing addresses of
`
`respective 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), Petitioners certify that the ’469
`
`patent is available for Inter Partes Review and that Petitioners are not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an Inter Partes Review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`III.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`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.
`
`(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. 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)
`
`The 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).
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`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.
`
`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.”).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`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 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).2 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
`
`
`2 Exhibit 1014 was relied upon for reexamination of the ’121 patent. Exhibit 1014
`
`incorporates as appendices Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Citations to the appendices found
`
`in Exhibit 1014 are interchangeable with Exhibits 1031 and 1032.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`“Internet” (two directly and three through a gateway, “G’WAY”), each of which can
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`communicate with a NBNS that also is connected to the Internet:
`
`
`
`(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).
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 5,533,110 (“Pinard”) (Ex. 1021)
`Pinard was filed on November 29, 1994, and is thus prior art under § 102(e).
`
`During original prosecution, the examiner cited Pinard, but did not 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 1771-
`
`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,
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`she can establish separate calls with Mary and John, but switch between them, by
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`dragging her icon back-and-forth, during which “the other party is 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
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`computer network. (See id. at 2:36-38 (“The present invention is a broker method and
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`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). Because all of the
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`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. 8,
`
`a user starts up their client process, which “automatically transmits its associated E-
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`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
`
`speeddial 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).
`
`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 server receives that query and “searches the
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`database 34 to determine whether the [second user] is logged-in by finding any stored
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,469
`
`
`information corresponding to the [second user’s] E-mail address indicating that the
`
`[second user] is active and on-line.” (Id. at 7:32-35). “If the [second user] is active and
`
`on-line, the connection serve