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 US. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`Case IPR No.2 IPR2015-01400
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF US. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`
`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. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 3
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 6
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 7
`
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 7
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’469 PATENT (EX. 1001) ......................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses .................................................................................. 10
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with a Connection Server ........................................ 10
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`Connection Server, Which Returns IP Address of Second
`
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 11
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to—Point Communication with Second
`
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 12
`
`5.
`
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process ...................... 13
`
`Original Prosecution of the ’469 Patent .............................................. 14
`
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’469 Patent ............................... 14
`
`The Sipnet Inter Partes Review for the ’704 Patent (EX. 1010) ......... 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VI.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................ 16
`
`A. WINS (Ex. 1003) ................................................................................. 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses from DHCP Servers ................................................. 17
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with the WINS Server ............................................. 19
`
`

`

`US Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to WINS
`Server and Receives the IP Address of the Second
`
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 23
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communication with Second
`
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 24
`
`B.
`
`NetBIOS (EX. 1004) ............................................................................ 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Have Assigned IP Addresses ............ 26
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and
`Identifiers with the NBNS ........................................................ 26
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to the
`NBNS and Receives the IP Address of the Second
`
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 28
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to
`Establish Point-to-Point Communications with Second
`
`Processing Unit ......................................................................... 29
`
`C.
`
`Pinard (EX. 1020) ................................................................................ 30
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 33
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Point-To-Point Communication” (Claims 1, 5); “Point-to-Point
`Communication Link” (Claims 2-3, 9 and 10) .................................... 34
`
`“Unique Identifier” (Claim 1) ............................................................. 34
`
`“Program Code For Determining The Currently Assigned
`Network Protocol Address Of The First Process Upon
`Connection To The Computer Network” (Claim 1) /
`“Determining The Currently Assigned Network Protocol
`Address Of The First Process Upon Connection To The
`Computer Network” (Claim 5) ............................................................ 35
`
`“Connected To The Computer Network” (Claims 3, 6) /
`“Connection To The Computer Network” (Claim 5) / “On-Line”
`(Claim 9) .............................................................................................. 36
`
`E.
`
`“Accessible” (Claim 9) ........................................................................ 36
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 37
`
`A.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1-3, 9-10, 14 and 17-18 Would Have Been
`
`Obvious Over WINS, NetBIOS and Pinard. ....................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 37
`
`.fi.
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`One Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated to
`
`Combine WINS, NetBIOS and Pinard. .................................... 38
`
`Claim 1 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. .......................... 40
`
`Claim 2 (Depends From Claim 1) Should Be Cancelled.......... 47
`
`Claim 3 (Depends From Claim 2) Should Be Cancelled.......... 48
`
`Claim 9 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. .......................... 51
`
`Claim 10 (Depends From Claims 8/9) Should Be
`Cancelled ................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 14 (Depends From Claim 9) Should Be Cancelled ........ 56
`
`Claim 17 (Depends From Claim 9) Should Be Cancelled ........ 57
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 18 (Depends From Claim 17) Should Be Cancelled.
`................................................................................................... 58
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 5 and 6 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`
`WINS and NetBIOS. ........................................................................... 58
`
`1.
`
`One Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated to
`
`Combine WINS and NetBIOS. ................................................. 58
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 5 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. .......................... 59
`
`Claim 6 (Depend From Claim 5) Should Be Cancelled. .......... 60
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Philips v. A WH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303. (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
`
`Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing
`Same, InV. No. 337-TA-892 (U.S.I.T.C.) ............................................... 35, 36, 37
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ....................................................................................... 14, 37, 58
`
`35 U.S.C. §§311-19 ................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`Rules
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(4)—(5) ............................................................................................... 37
`
`-iv—
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 33
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 33
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and AVAYA Inc. (“AVAYA”) (collectively
`
`“‘Petitioners”) respectfully request 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”) (EX. 1001)1 under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`The ’469 patent is directed to establishing “point-to-point communications”
`
`between two processes (e.g., computers) over a computer network. The ’469
`
`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 ’469 inventors disclosed a simple
`
`lookup 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
`
`so-called point-to point communication with the second process. The ’469 patent
`
`1 All citations are to the numbers added by Petitioners to the exhibits.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 ’469 patent), others
`
`had solved the same problem using the same basic lookup feature. For example, in
`
`1994, Microsoft published a user’s manual for Version 3.5 of its Windows NT
`
`Server software (“WINS”) (Ex. 1003). Just like the ’469 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 parent
`
`of the ’469 patent, US. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704 patent”), based on the same
`
`WINS reference (Exhibit 1003), and the NetBIOS Technical Standard (“NetBIOS”)
`
`(Exhibit 1004).
`
`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 Sipnet IPR petitioners treated the WINS and NetBIOS references as
`
`separate,
`
`they can be treated as a single reference because WINS explicitly
`
`incorporates the NetBIOS protocol, see infra § VI(A). For purposes of this petition,
`
`however, Petitioners treat these references as an obviousness combination.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Sipnet had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that: (i) WINS anticipates
`
`claims 1—7 and 32—42 of the ’704 patent; (ii) NetBIOS anticipates claims 1—7, 32,
`
`and 38—42; and (iii) NetBIOS and WINS render obvious claims 33*3 7—confirming
`
`that WINS and NetBIOS solve the same problem using the same basic features as
`
`the ’704 and ’469 patents.
`
`(EX. 1029 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, US 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, WINSand NetBIOS (EX. 1004) render obvious claims 5—6,
`
`and, in further combination with Pinard, claims 1-3, 9-10, 14, and 17-18.
`
`11. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`. Cisco and AVAYA are the real parties-in—interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The following would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`(1) Petitioners’ inter partes review petitions contesting the validity of claims
`
`3, 4, and 6-14 ofU.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 (“’121 patent”) and claims 1, 11-12, 14,
`
`16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31 of US. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“’704 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”).
`
`(3) Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et a]. v. Straight Path [F Group, Inc. reviewing
`
`certain
`
`claims of
`
`the
`
`’704
`
`patent
`
`(IPR2014-01366);
`
`the
`
`’469
`
`patent
`
`(IPR2014-01367); and the ’ 121 patent (IPR2014-01368) (all instituted March 6,
`
`2015),
`
`and joined by Petitioners
`
`(IPR2015-01011,
`
`IPR2015-01007,
`
`and
`
`IPR2015-01006, all instituted andjoined June 5, 2015).
`
`(4) Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. SipnetE U SR. 0., 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”).
`
`(5) Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 3:14-cv—04312
`
`(ND. Cal.) (filed Sept. 24, 2014; complaint served Sept. 30, 2014) asserting the ’704
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`US Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`patent, the ”469 patent, the ’121 patent, as well as the related US. Patent No.
`
`6,701,365 (the “”365 patent”) (dismissed without prejudice on Dec. 24, 2014).
`
`(6) Straight Path [F 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) 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 (SD. 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 (ED. Tex.); Straight Path [F Group,
`
`Inc. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et a]. 6-]4-cv-00534 (ED. Tx.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`v. Netflix, Inc.,. 6-]4-cv-00405 (ED. Tx.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. ZTE Corp.
`
`et al., 6-]3-cv-00607 (ED. Tex.); Straight Path [F Group, Inc. v. Huawei Investment
`
`& Holding Co., Ltd. et al., 6-]3-cv-00605 (ED. Tex.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al., 6-13-cv-00604 (ED. Tex.); Straight Path [F Group, Inc. v.
`
`Toshiba Corp. et al., 1—13-cv-01070 (ED. Va); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v.
`
`Toshiba Corp. et al., 3-13-cv-00503 (ED. Va); Straight Path [F Group, Inc. v.
`
`Panasonic Corp. of N. Am. Et al., I-I3-cv-00935 (ED. Va); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v. Sharp Corp. et al., I -I 3-cv-00936 (ED. Va); Straight Path IP Group,
`
`_5-
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al., I -I 3-cv-00933 (ED. Va.),' Straight Path [F Group, Inc.
`
`v. Sony Corp. et al., 2—1 3-cv-00427 (ED. Va.); Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Vizio,
`
`Inc. et al., 1-13-cv-00934 (ED. Va.),‘ Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et
`
`al., I-I3-cv-0107I (ED. Va.); Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`Vivox, Ina, 2-12-cv-00007 (ED. Va.); Innovative Communications Technologies,
`
`Inc. v. Stalker Software, Inc. et al., 2-12-cv-00009 (ED. 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 (WD. Ark.),' and Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices
`
`and Products Containing Same, Inv. 33 7-TA-892 (I. T.C.).
`
`Because this petition and Petitioners” Related Petitions are identical
`
`in
`
`substance to the petitions for 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
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`
`

`

`
`
`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Tel: (202) 663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`Email: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.c0m
` Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`
`Backup Counsel
`[see firm contact information above]
`
`
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814 Christopher 0. Green, Reg. No. 52,964
`
`Email: jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`Fish & Richardson PC.
`
`
`
`
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`
` Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel for
`AVAYA
`
`Email: IPR25979-0017IP1@fr.c0m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 612—337-2509, Fax: 877—769-7945
`
`Email: whelan@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 ’469 patent is available for
`
`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
`
`_7_
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 17-18 of the
`
`’469 patent (“the challenged claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This
`
`Petition, supported by the Declaration of Dr. Bruce M. Maggs (Ex. 1002),
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are not patentable
`
`and that Petitioners will prevail on at least one of them. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`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
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).3 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 “TCPIPHLP” 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 the “Welcome” and “Glossary” sections) of WINS and was first
`
`3 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. 1029 at 20.
`
`-8—
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`published in February 1995, as confirmed by the copyright registration notice
`
`(Exhibit 1009). The “TCPIPHLP” file is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
`
`and (b) and Microsoft Windows NT Networking Guide is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`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)
`
`(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.
`
`A.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’469 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention
`
`The ’469 patent concedes that, in the prior art, a first “processing unit” or
`
`“process” 4 could establish “point-to-point communication” with a second
`
`processing unit using the network address of the second processing unit, “in a
`
`manner known in the art.” (EX. 1001, 9:53-10:10; id., 2:5-9 (“[D]evices interfacing
`
`to the Internet and other online services may communicate with each other upon
`
`4
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`For convenlence, the term “processmg unit” IS used 1n Sections V and VI.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`establishing respective device addresses”);
`
`id, 2:30-32, 9:55-57, 10:12-15
`
`(“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” and “may be
`
`conducted in a manner known in the art between the first and second users through
`
`the Internet 24.”); Ex. 1002 11 36.)
`
`According to the ’469 patent, however, point-to-point communication was
`
`“difficult
`
`to attain” between devices with “temporary IP addresses” (i.e.,
`
`dynamically assigned IP addresses that “may be reassigned or recycled” over time).
`
`(EX. 1001, 2:23-42.) The ’469 patent represented that a need therefore existed “for a
`
`way to obtain the dynamically assigned [IP] address of a user having on-line status
`
`with respect to a computer network, particularly the Internet.” (Id, 2:54-57; Ex.
`
`1002 11 37.) The ’469 patent claimed to solve that supposed “problem” through the
`
`basic lookup feature described in Figure 8. (Ex. 1001, Fig. 8; Ex. 1002 11 37.)
`
`1.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP Addresses
`
`When a processing unit “logs on to the Internet
`
`...,
`
`[it]
`
`is provided a
`
`dynamically allocated IP address by an Internet Service Provider.” (EX. 1001, 5:58,
`
`6:59-65, 13:9-12, 13:66-67, 15:34-39, 18:18-22, Fig. 13A; Ex. 1002 1138.)
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses and Identifiers
`2.
`with a Connection Server
`
`After receiving its address, the first processing unit “automatically transmits .
`
`.
`
`. its dynamically allocated IP address to the connection server 26,” which “stores
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`these addresses in the database 34....”
`
`(EX. 1001, 6266-724;
`
`id, 12:15-18
`
`(“[C]onnection server 26
`
`timestamps and stores E-mail and IP addresses of
`
`logged-in users and processing units in the database 34.”); id, 12:48-54 (connection
`
`server provides “directory and information related services”);
`
`id, 18:27-37
`
`(“one-to-one mapping” of “identifier” and “current IP address” for each “client
`
`process”);
`
`id, 22:57-23:47 (registration process during “start up”); EX. 1021
`
`[10/26/98 Amend] at 9; EX. 1002 fl 39.)
`
`Connection server 26 keeps “relatively current” data concerning the “on-line
`
`status” of registered processing units, e.g.,
`
`it may confirm that a registered
`
`processing unit remains online after “predetermined time periods, such as a default
`
`value of 24 hours.” (EX. 1001, 7:14-19.) 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 off-line.” (Id, 7:49-52; EX. 1002 11 40.)
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to Connection Server,
`3.
`Which Returns IP Address of Second Processing Unit
`
`To establish point-to-point communications with a second processing unit,
`
`the first processing unit “send[s] a query
`
`to the connection server 26” that
`
`includes “the name or alias
`
`of a party to be called.” (Id, 7:30-36, 11:19-26,
`
`11:65-12:1, 12:18-23; EX. 1022 [3/8/99 Amend] at 8-9); EX. 1002 11 41.) Upon
`
`receiving the query, connection server 26 “searches the database 34 to determine
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`US Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`whether the [second processing unit] is logged-in by finding any stored information
`
`indicating that the [second processing unit] is active and on-line.” (EX. 1001,
`
`7:30-36.) “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, 7:35-39; id, 12:23-28 (“Connection server 26 retrieves the
`
`IP address of the specified user from the database 34
`
`and sends the retrieved IP
`
`address to the first processing unit 12.”); id, 18:3 8-19: 17, 23 :63-24: 17 (server looks
`
`up and returns requested IP address); id, 23:52-59 (user inputs “callee party’s name
`
`or alias” “to obtain the current dynamically assigned Internet Protocol address of the
`
`prospective callee”); EX. 1002 fl 41.)
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address to Establish
`4.
`Point-to-Point Communication with Second Processing Unit
`
`After receiving the IP address of the second processing unit from connection
`
`server 26, “[t]he first processing unit 12 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, 7:39-42; id, 12:23-28 (received IP address
`
`“enable[s] first processing unit 12 to establish point—to-point communications with
`
`the specified second user”); EX. 1002 fl 42.)
`
`The ’469 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
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`manner known in the art” and “may be conducted in a manner known in the art
`
`between the first and second users through the Internet 24.” (Ex. 1001, 9:53-57,
`
`10: 1 1-15 (emphasis added).) The claimed invention also functions the same
`
`regardless of “whether the current IP addresses were permanent (i.e. predetermined
`
`or preassigned) or temporary (i.e. assigned upon initiation of the point-to-point
`
`communication.” (Id, 9:29-34; EX. 1002 11 43.)
`
`5.
`
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process
`
`The ’469 patent claims that a need also existed to implement the disclosed
`
`features using “current graphic user interface technology associated with computer
`
`software,” such as the “familiar” telephone user interface in Figures 5 and 6, which
`
`“may be displayed on a display of a personal computer (PC) or a PDA in a manner
`
`known in the art.” (EX. 1001, 2:43-50, 10:29-34, Figs. 5, 6; EX. 1002 fl 44.) The
`
`caller “may switch between multiple calls in progress on respective lines”;
`
`“[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, 11:16-35.)
`
`In addition, “the HLD icon 44 may be actuated to place a
`
`current line on hold.” (Id, 10:46-51; id, 28:8-10 (“Pressing a line button, i.e., left
`
`clicking, when the line is in use places the line on hold. Subsequent depressing the
`
`line button takes the call off hold”); EX. 1002 ‘H 44.)
`
`_13_
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Original Prosecution of the ’469 Patent
`
`During prosecution of the ’469 patent, the Examiner rejected all claims, but
`
`issued the ’469 patent after the patentee cancelled claims and amended and added
`
`others.
`
`(Ex. 1023 [4/20/98 Action] at 3-9 & Ex. 1024 [10/19/99 Notice].) This
`
`Petition does not rely on prior art cited in original prosecution. (Ex. 1002 1] 45.)
`
`C.
`
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’469 Patent
`
`On February 23, 2009, a third party requested ex parte reexamination of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14-18 of the ’469 patent. During that proceeding, the
`
`Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View
`
`of NetBIOS, IETF RFC 1531, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol” (“DHCP”),
`
`Pinard, and the VocalChat User’s Guide.
`
`(Ex. 1025 [8/25/09 Office Action] at 3.)
`
`In subsequently allowing the claims over this prior art, the Examiner was persuaded
`
`by an expert declaration arguing that “bringing dynamic addressing into a NetBIOS
`
`type system would create a new set of obstacles that would need to be solved” such
`
`that “one of ordinary skill in the art would [not] have been motivated to combine
`
`NetBIOS and [DHCP].”
`
`(Ex. 1026 [5/10/10 Office Action] at 11; Ex. 1027
`
`[11/25/09 Mayer-Patel Dec1.] at 5-7; Ex. 1002 1] 46.)
`
`The expert declaration failed to note that prior art, including WINS, disclosed
`
`using dynamic addressing in a NetBIOS-type system.
`
`(E. g, Ex. 1003 at 13 (DHCP
`
`servers allow “users [to] take advantage of dynamic IP address allocation and
`
`_14_
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 6,009,469
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`management”); id. at 41 (“Microsoft Windows networking provides dynamic name
`
`resolution for NetBIOS computer names via WINS servers and NetBIOS over
`
`TCP/IP.”); id. at 67 (“All computers register themselves with the WINS server,
`
`which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS) with enhancements”); Ex. 1002 11 47.)
`
`The expert declaration also argued that the “[accessible] limitation [does not]
`
`simply mean that a user is registered with the system” because, among other reasons,
`
`“NetBIOS explicitly provides for permanent registration of names.”
`
`(Ex. 1028
`
`[7/ 12/ 10 Mayer-Patel Decl.] at 1—2.) But the ’469 challenged claims do not require
`
`the registration of “non-permanent” addresses, and even if they did,
`
`the
`
`“comprising” nature of the claims means that they can be met by a system that
`
`registers both “permanent” and “non-permanent” addresses. The declaration also
`
`failed to acknowledge that the ’469 patent registration scheme—which keeps the
`
`“on-line status” of registered processes “relatively current” by periodically
`
`confirming that processes remain online after “predetermined time periods, such as a
`
`default value of 24 hours” (Ex. 1001, 7:14-19)—is the same scheme disclosed in
`
`WINS and NetBIOS. (Ex. 1002 ll 48.)
`
`Relying on the flawed declaration,
`
`the Examiner confirmed claims 5-6
`
`without amendment, allowed amended versions of claims 1, 9, 14, 16, and 17, and
`
`allowed claims 2, 3, 15, and 18 for depending on an amended claim. T