UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and AVAYA INC.
`Petitioners
`v.
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)
`Patent Owner
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Case IPR No.: IPR2015-01398
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
` Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 4
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 7
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 8
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 9
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’704 PATENT (EX. 1001) ....................................... 11
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention ..................................................... 11
`1.
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses .................................................................................. 12
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with a Connection Server ........................................ 13
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to Connection
`Server, Which Returns IP Address of Second Processing Unit 13
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 14
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process ...................... 15
`5.
`B. Original Prosecution of the ’704 Patent .............................................. 15
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’704 Patent ............................... 15
`C.
`The Sipnet Inter Partes Review for the ’704 Patent (Ex. 1010) ......... 17
`D.
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................ 17
`A. WINS (Ex. 1003) ................................................................................. 17
`1.
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses from DHCP Servers ................................................. 19
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with the WINS Server ............................................. 21
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to WINS Server
`and Receives the IP Address of the Second Processing Unit ... 25
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`4.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 26
`B. NetBIOS (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................ 26
`1.
`Step 1: Processing Units Have Assigned IP Addresses ............ 28
`2.
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with the NBNS ........................................................ 28
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to the NBNS and
`Receives the IP Address of the Second Processing Unit .......... 30
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communications with Second
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 31
`Pinard (Ex. 1020) ................................................................................ 31
`C.
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 34
`A.
`“Point-to-Point Communication Link” (Claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19,
`21-23, 27, 30-31) ................................................................................. 35
`“[Program Code for / Program Logic Configured to] Transmitting /
`Transmit to the Server a Network Protocol Address Received By the
`First Process Following Connection to the Computer Network”
`(Claims 12-14) ..................................................................................... 36
`“Connection To The Computer Network” (Claim 3, 9-14) / “Connected
`To The Computer Network” (Claims 4, 6-8, 13) ................................ 36
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 37
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 38
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over WINS and
`NetBIOS. ............................................................................................. 38
`1.
`A Person Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated to
`Combine WINS and NetBIOS .................................................. 38
`Claim 1 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. .......................... 39
`2.
`B. Ground 2: Claims 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over WINS, NetBIOS, and Pinard .............................. 46
`1.
`One Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`WINS, NetBIOS, and Pinard .................................................... 47
`Claim 11 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. ........................ 48
`
`2.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claim 12 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 52
`3.
`Claim 14 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 52
`4.
`Claim 16 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 54
`5.
`Claim 19 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 55
`6.
`Claim 22 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. ........................ 56
`7.
`Claim 23 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 57
`8.
`Claim 27 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 58
`9.
`10. Claim 30 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 58
`11. Claim 31 (Depends from Claim 30) Should Be Cancelled. ..... 59
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products
`Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-892 (U.S.I.T.C.) ...................................................................... 37
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303. (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................. 35, 36, 37
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................. 10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 38, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`RULES
`
`Rules 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2) .......................................................................... 9
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and AVAYA Inc. (“AVAYA”) (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) request Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27,
`
`and 30-31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704 patent”) (Ex. 1001)1 pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`The ’704 patent is directed to establishing “point-to-point communications”
`
`between two processes (e.g., computers) over a computer network. The ’704 patent
`
`inventors did not claim to invent point-to-point communications, which they
`
`conceded were already “known in the art.” Instead, they alleged that prior art
`
`point-to-point communications were “impractical” when the initiating process did
`
`not know the specific network address of the other process; for example, in the case
`
`of processes with dynamically assigned addresses that can change over time.
`
`To address that alleged problem, the ’704 patent inventors disclosed a simple
`
`look-up feature involving a “server” that tracks the currently assigned network
`
`address and other identifying information (e.g., name) of registered processes. In
`
`response to a query received from a first process (e.g., using the name of a second
`
`process), the server sends the current network address of the second process to the
`
`first process, and the first process then uses that retrieved address to establish a
`
`1 Petitioners have numbered each page of the Exhibits. All citations are to the
`
`numbers added by Petitioners.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`so-called point-to-point communication with the second process. The ’704 patent
`
`also claimed a need to implement these basic features by using a “current graphic
`
`user interface technology associated with computer software.”
`
`But by September 1995 (the claimed priority date of the ’704 patent), others
`
`had solved the same problem using the same basic lookup feature. For example, in
`
`1994, Microsoft published a user manual for Version 3.5 of its Windows NT Server
`
`software (“WINS”) (Ex. 1003). Just like the ’704 patent, WINS teaches (1) a name
`
`server (WINS implements the NetBIOS protocol) that tracks the current
`
`dynamically assigned network address and name of each registered process; and (2)
`
`a first process that sends a name query for a second process to the name server, and
`
`then uses the network address received in response to the query to establish
`
`point-to-point communications with the second process. In fact, on October 11,
`
`2013, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1-7 and 33-42 of the ’704
`
`patent based on the same WINS reference that Petitioners submitted here as Exhibit
`
`1003, and the NetBIOS Technical Standard submitted here as Exhibit 1004
`
`(“NetBIOS”). See Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, IPR No.
`
`2013-00246. (Ex. 1011.)2 And on October 9, 2014, the Board determined that
`
`2 Although the petitioners in the Sipnet IPR treated the WINS and NetBIOS
`
`references as separate for anticipation and obviousness, they can be treated as a
`
`single reference for anticipation because WINS explicitly incorporates the NetBIOS
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Sipnet had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-7 and 32-42 of
`
`the ’704 patent are unpatentable— specifically, that (i) claims 1-7 and 32-42 are
`
`anticipated by WINS; (ii) claims 1-7, 32, and 38-42 are anticipated by NetBIOS; and
`
`(iii) claims 33-37 are obvious over NetBIOS and WINS—confirming that the WINS
`
`and NetBIOS references solve the same problem using the same basic features as the
`
`’704 patent. (Ex. 1024 at 25.)
`
`The claims challenged by Petitioners share many limitations with claim 1 of
`
`the ’704 patent that the Sipnet IPR panel found to be anticipated by both NetBIOS
`
`and WINS. For efficiency and consistency, Petitioners ask the Board to assign the
`
`Sipnet panel to this petition.
`
`The prior art also disclosed the “user interface” aspects of the alleged
`
`invention. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110 to Pinard et al. (“Pinard”) (Ex.
`
`1020), filed in November 1994, teaches a software user interface that mimics a
`
`traditional telephone, including icons to represent “communication lines” and for
`
`functions such as placing a call on hold.
`
`As detailed below, WINS and NetBIOS render obvious claim 1, and, in
`
`further combination with Pinard, claims 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`protocol, see infra § VI(A). For purposes of this petition, however, Petitioners treat
`
`these references as an obviousness combination.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Cisco and AVAYA are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The following would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`(1) Petitioners’ inter partes review petitions contesting the validity of claims
`
`1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 (“’469 patent”) and
`
`claims 3, 4, and 6-14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 (“’121 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Petitioners’ Related Petitions”).
`
`(2) 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 instituted May 15,
`
`2015) (the “LG/Hulu IPRs”) , and joined by Petitioners (IPR2015-01011,
`
`IPR2015-01007, and IPR2015-01006, all instituted and joined June 5, 2015).
`
` (3) 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); ’469
`
`patent claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 (IPR2014-01367); and ’121 patent claims
`
`6, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 (IPR2014-01368) (all instituted March 6, 2015).
`
` (4) 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)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(reviewing ’704 patent claims 1-7 and 32-42) (the “Sipnet IPR”).
`
`(5) Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04312
`
`(N.D. Cal.) (filed Sept. 24, 2014; complaint served Sept. 30, 2014) asserting the ’704
`
`patent, the ’469 patent, the ’121 patent, as well as the related U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,701,365 (the “’365 patent”) (dismissed without prejudice on Dec. 24, 2014).
`
`(6) Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. AVAYA Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04309 (N.D.
`
`Cal.) (filed Sept. 24, 2014; complaint served Sept. 30, 2014), asserting the ’704
`
`patent, ’469 patent, ’121 patent, and ’365 patent (dismissed without prejudice on
`
`Dec. 24, 2014).
`
`(7) 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 Dec. 5, 2013, terminated on May 2, 2014 on joint
`
`motions after the filing of the Patent Owner’s preliminary response, but prior to a
`
`decision whether to institute a trial).
`
`(8) Netflix, Inc., et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. seeking review of
`
`certain claims of the ’704 patent (IPR2014-01241) (filed August 1, 2014, terminated
`
`October 30, 2014 on a joint motion made prior to filing of the Patent Owner’s
`
`preliminary response).
`
`(9) 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(IPR2014-01234); the ’365 patent (IPR2014-01224); and the related U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,513,066 (IPR2014-01223) (all filed Aug. 1, 2014, terminated Oct. 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 ’121 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,
`
`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. Tex.); Straight Path IP Group,
`
`Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 6-14-cv-00405 (E.D. Tex.); 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 Certain Point-to-Point
`
`Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA-892
`
`(I.T.C.).
`
`(11) Because this petition and Petitioners’ Related Petitions are identical in
`
`substance to the petitions underlying the LG/Hulu IPRs, Petitioners are filing
`
`Motions for Joinder with the LG/Hulu IPRs. In the alternative, Petitioners request
`
`that, for efficiency and consistency, the panel assigned to the LG.Hulu IPRs also be
`
`assigned to address this petition and Petitioners’ Related Petitions; or, in the
`
`alternative, that the same panel be assigned to this petition and Petitioners’ Related
`
`Petitions.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Tel: (202) 663-6000 Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`Email: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`[see firm contact information above]
`
`Email: jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`
`Christopher O. Green, Reg. No. 52,964
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`
`Backup Counsel for
`
`60 South Sixth Street
`
`AVAYA
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Tel: 612-337-2509
`
`Fax: 877-769-7945
`
`Email: whelan@fr.com
`
`Email: IPR25979-0017IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this Petition. Counsel for Petitioners
`
`consent to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify under Rule 42.104(a) that the ’704 patent is available for
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`inter partes review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and
`
`30-31 of the ’704 patent (“the challenged claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103. This Petition, supported by the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Bruce M.
`
`Maggs (Ex. 1002), demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims are not patentable and that Petitioners will prevail with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).3
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners’ challenge is
`
`based on the following references:
`
`1. WINS (Ex. 1003), which Microsoft Corporation published and publicly
`
`distributed to customers no later than September 1994, is prior art under at least 35
`
`
`3 Although the Board has already determined that both the WINS and NetBIOS
`
`references anticipate claim 1 (Ex. 1024 at 25), this Petition includes an analysis of
`
`claim 1 in view of those references. This analysis serves as the foundation for
`
`analysis relative to the remaining challenged claims and further demonstrate the
`
`overwhelming similarities between the references and the ’704 patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).4 The September 1994 publication date for WINS is further
`
`confirmed, for example, by: (1) Exhibit 1007, a copyright registration notice that
`
`lists September 19, 1994 as the date of first publication for “Microsoft Windows NT
`
`Server, Version 3.5”; (2) Exhibit 1006, a printout of the “TCPIP.HLP” file (bearing
`
`a “Date modified” of September 4, 1994) that was distributed with Microsoft
`
`Windows NT Server 3.5 bears a 1994 copyright date, and is substantively identical
`
`to WINS (except it does not include the “Glossary”); and (3) Exhibit 1008, a book
`
`titled Microsoft Windows NT Networking Guide containing the relevant portions
`
`(except for the “Welcome” and “Glossary” sections) of WINS and was first
`
`published in February 1995, as confirmed by the copyright registration notice
`
`(Exhibit 1009). The “TCPIP.HLP” file is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
`
`and (b) and the Microsoft Windows NT Networking Guide is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`2.
`
`Technical Standard — Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking: SMB,
`
`Version 2, including Appendices F and G (respectively, Internet Engineering Task
`
`Force RFC Nos. 1001 (“Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP
`
`Transport: Concepts and Methods”) and 1002 (“Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS
`
`Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Detailed Specifications”)) (Ex. 1004)
`
`4 WINS was before the Board as Exhibit 1004 in the Sipnet IPR (discussed below in
`
`Section V(D)), and the Board found WINS to be prior art. Ex. 1024 at 20.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(collectively, “NetBIOS”) was published and made publicly available in September
`
`1992, and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`3.
`
`Pinard (Ex. 1020) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’704 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`A.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`The ’704 patent concedes that, in the prior art, a first processing unit could
`
`establish “point-to-point communications” with a second processing unit using the
`
`network address of the second processing unit, “in a manner known in the art.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:21-23 (“[D]evices interfacing to the Internet and other online services may
`
`communicate with each other upon establishing respective device addresses.”); id.,
`
`1:48-50, 7:60-64 (“Permanent IP addresses of users and devices accessing the
`
`Internet readily support point-to-point communications of voice and video signals
`
`over the Internet” “may be established as shown in FIGS. 3-4 in a manner known in
`
`the art”); id., 8:20-22 (point-to-point communications “may be conducted in a
`
`manner known in the art between the first and second users through the Internet
`
`24”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 32.)
`
`According to the ’704 patent, however, point-to-point communication was
`
`“difficult to attain” between processing units with “temporary IP addresses” (i.e.,
`
`dynamically assigned IP addresses) that “may be reassigned or recycled” over time.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:35-56.) The ’704 patent represented that a need therefore existed for a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`way to establish point-to-point communications between computers with dynamic
`
`IP addresses. (Id.; see also Ex. 1021 [3/4/99 Amendment] at 14 (“The problem is:
`
`How can a global network user be located if he/she has no permanent network
`
`address? .... Applicants have disclosed a solution to the above- described
`
`problem.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 33.)
`
`The ’704 patent claimed to solve that supposed “problem” through the basic
`
`lookup feature described in Figure 8:
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 8; Ex. 1002 ¶ 34.)
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses
`
`When a “processing unit” (the term used in the specification of the ’704
`
`patent) or “process” (the term used in the claims)5 “logs on to the Internet..., the
`
`
`5 For convenience, the term “processing unit” is used in Sections V and VI.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`[processing unit] is provided a dynamically allocated IP address by a connection
`
`Service Provider.” (Ex. 1001, 5:21-24; 4:7-16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 35.)
`
`2.
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with a Connection Server
`
`After receiving its address, a processing unit “automatically transmits … its
`
`dynamically allocated IP address to the connection server 26,” which “stores these
`
`addresses in the database 34....” (Ex. 1001, 5:25-31; id., 10:23-27 (“[C]onnection
`
`server 26 ... timestamp[s] and store[s] E-mail and IP addresses of logged-in users
`
`and processing units in the database 34.”).) Connection server 26 keeps “relatively
`
`current” “on-line status” of registered processing units, e.g., it may confirm that a
`
`processing unit remains online after “predetermined time periods, such as a default
`
`value of 24 hours.” (Id., 5:39-44.) Alternatively, “[w]hen a user logs off or goes
`
`off-line from the Internet 24, the connection server 26 updates the status of the user
`
`in the database 34; for example, by removing the user’s information, or by flagging
`
`the user as being offline.” (Ex. 1001, 6:6-9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36.)
`
`3.
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`Connection Server, Which Returns IP Address of Second
`Processing Unit
`
`To establish point-to-point communications with a second processing unit,
`
`“the first processing unit…sends a query…to the connection server 26” that includes
`
`“the name or alias… of a party to be called.” (Ex. 1001, 5:55-67, 9:26- 33, 10:4-11,
`
`10:28-32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 37.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The connection server then “searches the database 34 to determine whether
`
`the [second processing unit] is logged-in by finding any stored information ...
`
`indicating that the [second processing unit] is active and on-line.” (Id., 5:57-61.) “If
`
`the [second processing unit] is active and on-line ... the IP address of the [second
`
`processing unit] is retrieved from the database 34 and sent to the first [processing
`
`unit].” (Id., 5:60-64; id., 10:21-37 (Connection server 26 “retriev[es] the IP address
`
`of the specified user from the database 34 ... and send[s] the retrieved IP address to
`
`the first processing unit 12.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 38.)
`
`4.
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`Processing Unit
`
`After receiving the IP address of the second processing unit, “[t]he first
`
`processing unit may then directly establish point-to-point Internet communications
`
`with the [second processing unit] using the IP address of the [second processing
`
`unit].” (Ex. 1001, 5:64-67; id., 10:34-37 (Connection server 26 “send[s] the received
`
`IP address to the first processing unit … to establish point-to-point Internet
`
`communications with specified second user”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 39.)
`
`The ’704 patent does not claim to invent point-to-point communications, or
`
`even a new type of point-to-point communications. Rather, it admits the claimed
`
`point-to-point communications “may be established as shown in FIGS. 3-4 in a
`
`manner known in the art” and “may be conducted in a manner known in the art
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`between the first and second users through the Internet 24”) (Ex. 1001, 7:60-64,
`
`8:20-22 (emphasis added).); Ex. 1002 ¶ 40.)
`
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process
`
`5.
`The ’704 patent discloses implementing communication features using
`
`graphic user interfaces that “may be displayed on a display of a personal computer
`
`(PC) or a PDA in a manner known in the art.” (Ex. 1001, 8:35-40, Figs. 5-6; see
`
`generally id., 8:35-10:3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 41.)
`
`The caller “may switch between multiple calls in progress on respective
`
`lines”; e.g., “[d]ragging the reduced icon 46 to any one of line icons L1-L4 transfers
`
`the called party in use to the selected line, and dragging the reduced icon 46 to any
`
`one of conference line icons C1-C3 adds the called party to the selected conference
`
`call.” (Ex. 1001, 9:38-42.) Also, “the HLD icon 44 may be actuated to place a
`
`current line on hold.” (Id., 8:57-58; id., 28:8-10; Ex. 1002 ¶ 42.)
`
`B. Original Prosecution of the ’704 Patent
`The original application for the ’704 patent contained 20 claims and claims
`
`21-53 were added. All 53 claims were rejected by the Examiner. After
`
`amendments, the Examiner ultimately allowed 44 of the claims. This Petition does
`
`not rely on prior art cited during the original prosecution. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 43)
`
`C.
`In February 2009, a
`
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’704 Patent
`third party—Skype, Inc.—requested ex parte
`
`reexamination of claims 1-7 and 10-44 of the ’704 patent. Skype argued that these
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`claims were anticipated and/or obvious in view of multiple prior art references
`
`including, among other references, NetBIOS and Pinard. The PTO found that there
`
`were substantial new questions of patentability affecting claims 1- 7 and 10-44
`
`based on prior art cited in the reexamination request. The PTO’s initial office action
`
`rejected claims 1-7 and 10-44 of the ’704 patent. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 44)
`
`However, the examiner was later persuaded by an expert declaration arguing
`
`that “bringing dynamic addressing into a NetBIOS type system would create a new
`
`set of obstacles” such that “one of ordinary skill in the art would [not] have been
`
`motivated to combine NetBIOS and [DHCP].” (Ex. 1022, 2010-05-11 Office
`
`Action] at 11; Ex. 1023 at 5-7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 45).
`
`The expert declaration failed to note that prior art, including WINS, disclosed
`
`using dynamic addressing in a NetBIOS-type system. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 69
`
`(“[W]hen dynamic addressing through DHCP results in new IP addresses for
`
`computers that move between subnets, the changes are automatically updated in the
`
`WINS database,” which “is based on and is compatible with the protocols defined
`
`for [NetBIOS Name Server] in RFCs 1001/1002...”); id. at 13 (DHCP servers allow
`
`“users [to] take advantage of dynamic IP address allocation and management.”); id.
`
`at 62 (“DHCP offers dynamic configuration of IP ad