UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP. AND
`
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`V’.
`
`STRAIGI-IT PATI-I IP GROUP, INC.
`(FOR\/IERLY KNOWN AS INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)
`Patent Owner
`
`INTER P/IRIIE5 REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Case IPR No.: To Be /1m'g2ze(Z
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTE5 REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 er yeq.
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`
`By:
`
`Rajeev Gupta, Reg. No. 55,873
`Dzuren M.jiron, Reg. No. 45,777
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`901 New York Ave., NW
`\X/ashington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I11
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... ..1
`
`IVIANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................................... ..4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest....................................................................................... ..4
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................. ..4
`
`Counsel and Service Information .................................................................. ..7
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................... ..8
`
`OVERVIE\X7 OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................... ..8
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’704 PATENT
`
`1001) ............................................ ..10
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention ............................................................. ..10
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned
`IPAddresses
`
`....11
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses
`and Identifiers with a Connection Server ....................................... ..12
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`Connection Server, Which Returns IP Address of
`
`Second Processing Unit .................................................................... ..12
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address
`to Establish Point-to-Point Communication with
`
`Second Processing Unit .................................................................... ..13
`
`5.
`
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process .......................... ..14
`
`Original Prosecution of the ’704 Patent ..................................................... ..14
`
`Prior Ex P4173 Reexamination of the ’704 Patent ..................................... ..14
`
`The Sipnet Inter Par/ex Review for the ’704 Patent (Ex. 1010) ................ ..16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`OVERVIE\X7 OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................. ..16
`
`A.
`
`WINS (Ex. 1003) ........................................................................................... ..16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned
`IP Addresses from DI-ICP Servers .................................................. ..18
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses
`and Identifiers with the WINS Server ............................................ ..2O
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`WINS Server and Receives the IP Address of the
`
`Second Processing Unit .................................................................... ..24
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`4.
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address
`to Establish Point-to-Point Communication with
`
`Second Processing Unit .................................................................... ..25
`
`B.
`
`NetBIOS (Ex. 1004) ...................................................................................... ..26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Have Assigned IP Addresses ............... ..27
`
`Step 2: Processing Units Register Their IP Addresses
`and Identifiers with the NBNS ........................................................ ..27
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to the
`NBNS and Receives the IP Address of the Second
`
`Processing Unit ................................................................................... ..29
`
`Step 5: First Processing Unit Uses Received IP Address
`to Establish Point-to-Point Communications with
`
`Second Processing Unit .................................................................... ..30
`
`C.
`
`Pinard (Ex. 1020) ........................................................................................... ..31
`
`VII.
`
`CTION ................................................................................... ..34
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“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) ............................................... ..35
`
`“Connection To The Computer Network” (Claim 3, 9-14) /
`“Connected To The Computer Network” (Claims 4, 6-8, 13) ............... ..36
`
`VIII. T ............................................... ..36
`IX.
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .......................................................... ..37
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over WINS
`
`and NetBIOS. ................................................................................................. ..37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A Person Skilled in the Art Would Have Been
`
`Motivated to Combine WINS and NetBIOS ................................ ..37
`
`Claim 1 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. ................................ ..38
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 11-12,14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31
`
`\"(/ould Have Been Obvious Over \X/INS, NetBIOS, and Pinard ........... ..46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`One Skilled in the Art Would Have Been Motivated to
`
`Combine W/INS, NetBIOS, and Pinard ......................................... ..46
`
`Claim 11 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. .............................. ..47
`
`Claim 12 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be
`Cancelled. ............................................................................................ ..51
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`1].
`
`Claim 14 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be
`Cancelled. ............................................................................................ ..52
`
`Claim 16 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be
`Cancelled. ............................................................................................ ..54
`
`Claim 19 (Depends from Claim 11) Should Be
`Cancelled. ............................................................................................ ..55
`
`Claim 22 (Independent) Should Be Cancelled. .............................. ..55
`
`Claim 23 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be
`Cancelled.
`
`Claim 27 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be
`Cancelled. ............................................................................................ ..57
`
`Claim 30 (Depends from Claim 22) Should Be
`Cancelled.
`
`Claim 31 (Depends from Claim 30) Should Be
`Cancelled. ............................................................................................ ..58
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... ..60
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`Pa.ge(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`In re ICON Hm///J 67‘ F2‘/725.1‘, 1725.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................... ..34
`
`Pbi//zjbx v. /-1 WT-I C050.,
`415 F.3d 1303. (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................... ..34, 35, 36
`
`Commission Cases
`
`Carla’/7 Poz'72/-/0—P0irz/ N6/7))0T/é C0771;/vzzrzira/ion De;/fuel‘ and Pro/7.'m'/11' C072/dining 5477/6,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-892
`
`36
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 L'.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................................. ..9, 10
`
`35 L‘.S.C.§102(b) ............................................................................................................. ..9, 10
`
`35 L'.s.c. § 102(e) .................................................................................................................. ..10
`
`35 L'.s.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................................... ..7
`
`35 L'.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................................... .. 37, 46
`
`35 L'.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`35 L'.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................................................... ..4
`
`35 L‘.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................................... ..1
`
`35 L‘.s.c. § 325 ......................................................................................................................... ..4
`
`Rules
`
`Rules 42.22(a) ........................................................................................................................... .. 9
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ........................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ............................................................................................................... ..8
`
`iv
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`Regulations
`
`37 CFR. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................................. ..4
`
`37 CFR. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................ ..34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) .............................................................................................................. ..1
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................................... ..34
`
`Other Authorities
`
`1\/Izrroxqft Windozm NT Ne/22/oraéi/gg Guide ................................................................................. ..9
`
`Tec/mz'm/ Stzmdar/1- Protouolrfor X/ Open PC Dz/e772»oné2'n.<g.' SMB,
`
`I/er.rz'o22 2.................. .. 9, 26
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Verizon Services Corp. and Verizon Business Network Services Inc.
`
`submit this petition for 1/7/62‘ Pzzrlex Review of US. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001)‘ concurrently with a Motion for joinder, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), with a pending IPR, LG E/em‘.
`
`luv. u. S/'-rczég/at Pa//9 IP G712),
`
`I/24:, IPR2015-00209, instituted on May 15, 2015.
`
`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 (eg., name) of registered processes. In
`
`response to a query received from a first process (eg, using the name of a second
`
`process), the server sends the current network address of the second process to the
`
`1 Petitioners have numbered each page of the Exhibits. All citations are to the
`
`numbers added by Petitioners.
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`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 ’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 (“W/INS”)
`
`1003). just like the ’704 patent, WINS teaches (1) a naine
`
`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 in/erparxei review of claims 1-7 and 33-42 of the ’704 patent based on the
`
`same WINS reference submitted here as Exhibit 1003, and the NetBIOS Technical
`
`Standard submitted here as Exhibit 1004 (“NetBIOS”). See Sgbnet EU SRO. v. Sl7Zlzg/J/
`
`Patb IP Groztp, [PR No. 2013-00246. (Ex. 1011.)2 And on October 9, 2014, the Board
`
`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
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`determined that Sipnet had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-7
`
`and 32-42 of the ’704 patent are unpatentable—specif1cally, that
`
`claims 1-7 and 32-
`
`42 are anticipated by \WlNS;
`
`claims 1-7, 32, and 38-42 are anticipated by
`
`NetBIOS; and (iii) claims 33-37 are obvious over NetBIOS and \‘</lNS—conf1rming
`
`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 Board has already found to be anticipated by both NetBIOS and
`
`WINS in the Sipnet IPR. 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.
`
`reference for anticipation because WINS explicitly incorporates
`
`the NetBIOS
`
`protocol, see ilg/in § Vl(A). For purposes of this petition, however, Petitioners treat
`
`these references as an obviousness combination.
`
`

`
`As detailed below, WINS and NetBlOS render obvious claim 1, and, in further
`
`combination with Pinard, claims 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 22-23, 27, and 30-31.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`11. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR. § 42.8(b)(l), Petitioners identify Verizon Services Corp.
`
`and Verizon Business Network Services
`
`Inc.
`
`as
`
`the
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`Additionally, Petitioners, out of an abundance of caution in light of prior challenges to
`
`the named real parties-in-interest in separate and unrelated IPR petitions, identify
`
`Verizon Corporate Resources Group, LLC and Verizon Communications Inc. as real
`
`parties—in—interest for the IPR requested by this Petition solely to the extent that
`
`Patent Owner contends that these separate legal entities should be named real parties-
`
`in-interest
`
`in the requested IPR, and Petitioners do so to avoid the potential
`
`expenditure of resources to resolve such a challenge. No unnamed entity is funding,
`
`controlling, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or any of
`
`the Petitioners’ participation in any resulting IPR. Also, Petitioners note that Verizon
`
`Communications Inc. has over 500 affiliated entities; each entity agrees to be estopped
`
`under the provisions of 35 'U.S.C. §§ 315 and/or 325 as a result of any final written
`
`decision in the requested IPR to the same extent that Petitioners are estopped.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The following would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`(1) Petitioners’ related in/er ,z>zzn‘e5 review petition contesting the validity of
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`claims 3, 4, and 6-14 ofU.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 (‘"121 patent”).
`
`(2) LG E/€£J'.,
`
`Im:, at al 2/.
`
`3/7‘czz;g[7z‘ Pa//J IP G7]b., Tm‘. seeking review of certain
`
`claims of the ’469 patent (IPR2015-00198), the ’121 patent (IPR2015-00196), and the
`
`’704 patent (lPR2015-00209) (all instituted May 15, 2015) (the “LG/Hulu IPRs”).
`
`(3) fa/mzmg E/mt Co., L/0’. at 11/. 7/. 3/mfg/at Pa//9 IP G/30., Im‘. 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 (lPR2014-01367); and ’121 patent claims 6, 8, 10-11, and 13-
`
`14 (IPR2014-01368) (ail instituted March 6, 2015).
`
`(4) Slrazglyl Pm.‘/2 IP G2]b., Im‘.
`
`72. Szpr/etEU SRO, 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., lPR2013-00246 (instituted Oct. 11, 2013)
`
`(reviewing ’704 patent claims 1-7 and 32-42) (the “Sipnet IPR”).
`
`(5) 3079/ Corp, 6/ ad 12. Smzzgbt Pm‘/5 [P G27), [mt seeking review of the ’1 21 patent
`
`(IPR2013-00229), the ’469 patent (IPR2014-00231), and the ’704 patent (lPR2014-
`
`00230) (all filed Dec. 5, 2013,
`
`terminated on May 2, 2014 on joint motions after
`
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response, but prior to an institution decision).
`
`(6) Neg‘/Zz'x, 1/25., at all
`
`7). Smzzjg/)7‘ Pm‘/J IP C175,, I/25. seeking review of certain claims
`
`of the ’704 patent (IPR2014-01241) (filed August 1, 2014,
`
`terminated October 30,
`
`2014 on a joint motion prior to filing of the Patent Owner’s preliminary response).
`
`(7)
`
`I/omzge Ho/dz"/zgr Corp, 3/ a/.
`
`22. S/,‘mz'g/9/f Pa/f/9 [P G7p., Im: seeking review of
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`certain claims of the ’469 patent (TPR2014—01225); the ’121 patent (IPR2014-01234);
`
`the ’365 patent
`
`(IPR2014-01224); and the related US. Patent No. 6,513,066
`
`(IPRZO14-01223) (all filed Aug. 1, 2014, terminated Oct. 30, 2014 on joint motions
`
`made prior to filing of the Patent Owner’s preliminary response).
`
`(8) Actions in which Straight Path (or one of its predecessors-in-interest) has
`
`asserted the ’121 patent, including S/mzgg/Jt Pt!//J IP G7p., Im: v. Verizoii C0772/7/’m', Inc. at
`
`41., 1-14-cv-07798 (S.D. N.Y.); Strazglvt Pat!) IP C271, 1275.
`
`22. Czlvm 5)/xte/m, Imx, No. 3:14-
`
`Cv-O4312 (N.D. Cal.); .5‘/7ZZZ;g/M Pd//J IP G/115.,
`
`Inc.
`
`12. AV./_1Y/-1 but, No. 3:14-cv-04309
`
`(ND. Cal.); Stmzgg/9/f Pa/.‘/9 IP Grjx,
`
`Im‘.
`
`72. Apple I/nu, 3—14—cv—04302 (N .D. Cal.); S/.‘mz<'g/J/f
`
`Pm.‘/9 IP Gm,
`
`Im‘.
`
`72.
`
`.§a77zJ'/mg Elm. Co., Ltd. et a/., 6-13-cv-00606 (E.D. Tex); 5/razggbz‘
`
`Pm.‘/9 [P G41,
`
`Im‘. v. B/aa'»éBer/y Lm’. at £21., 6-14-cv-00534 (E.D. Tex.); 5/razgg/fl Pat/J IP
`
`G7])., Im:
`
`12. Neg’Zz'x,
`
`I/25., 6-14-cv-00405 (ED. Tex); 5/.‘mz<'gbt Pd//J IP G7]).,
`
`Im‘. v. ZTE
`
`Corp. at 42/., 6-13-cv-00607 (E.D. Tex.); Straz('g/M Pm‘/9 [P G/]).,
`
`Im: v. H71fl7))€i Div. 6)’
`
`H01/7.’z'7z<g Ca, Ll/71 6/ a/., 6-13-cv-00605 (ED. Tex.); _§/7‘zzz<'g/J/ Pat/9 IP Gm, Im‘. v. B/ac‘/éBergy
`
`Ltd 3/ 41., 6-13-cv-00604 (ED. Tex); S/m2;g/Jt Pat/J [P G7p.,
`
`I/za‘. u. To:/Ji/M Cwp.
`
`e/.‘ a/., 1-
`
`13—cv-01070 (E.D. Va.); S/zzzzg/M Pat/) IP G771, [ma 1». Toxbiba Corp. at 42/., 3-13-cv-00503
`
`(E.D. Va.); S/7‘d2;g/M Pm.‘/2 IP Grjx, Im:
`
`22. Pa;-za.ro7zz'v Corp. of N. AM. et 42/., 1-13-cv-00935
`
`(E.D.
`
`\/21.); Smzzgbt Patb IP G7]).,
`
`I/zv. v. S/mp Corp.
`
`6/.‘ a/., 1-13-cv-00936 (E.D.
`
`\/21.);
`
`S/mz<'g/M Pa//J IP Grp, I725.
`
`22. LG E/em, Inc‘. 6;‘ al, 1-13-cv-00933 (ED. Va.); S/frag/Jt Pat/9
`
`[P G71-0.,
`
`I/IL‘.
`
`72. 50/3); Coij). at 42/., 2-13-cv-00427 (E.D.Va.); Strzzzgbt Pat/J IP Gip, 1/25.
`
`72.
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`I/izio, Im‘. at a/., l-13-cv-00934 (E.D.Va.); Straégbl Pa//J IP G7p., Im‘. y. 5079/ Corp. at zz/., l-
`
`l3-cv-01071 (E.D. Va.);
`
`172720124/z’2;c C077/77//25 Tet‘/5J1, D75.
`
`12. T/ivox,
`
`I/15., 2-12-cv-00007
`
`(E.D. Va); I/mom;/‘Z725 C07/1771’/ii‘ Tet‘/51., 1m:
`
`2!. Stalker S0]/mire, Im: at Ll/., 2-12-cv-00009
`
`(E.D. Va); Net2p/Jone, Im. v. B1919),
`
`Im‘. at 121, 2-O6-Cv-02469
`
`Ne/2p/awe,
`
`I725.
`
`12.
`
`E/74y, Imz,
`
`e/‘ 111., 4-1 0-cv-04090 (W/.D. Ark); and Poiiz/-/0—P0z'm Ne/work Co/7//7/zinzkatiofl
`
`Deiizlw mm’ Pr0dm7.’i' Cori/giving Same, Inv. 337-TA-892 ([.TC.).
`
`(9) Because this petition and Petitioners’ related petition are substantively
`
`identical to the petitions underlying the LG / I-lulu IPRs, Petitioners are filing Motions
`
`for joinder with the LG/l-Iulu 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 Petitioner’s related petition; or, in the alternative, that the
`
`same panel be assigned to this petition and Petitioners’ related petition.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Backu Counsel
`Service Information
`
`Rajeev Gupta (Registration No. 55,873)
`Darren M.
`iron
`e istration No. 45,77
`Emailzraj.gupta@flnnegan.com
`darren.jiron@finnega.n.com
`Post and hand delivery:
`FINNEGAN, LLP
`901 New York Ave., NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this Petition. Counsel for Petitioners
`
`consent to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify under Rule 42.104(a) that the ’704 patent is available for 2'/zler
`
`par/er review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting z'm‘e7',DmTeJ
`
`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 USC. § 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
`
`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 W/INS 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.
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): 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 “Glossa1y”); and (3) Exhibit 1008, a book titled
`
`/\/I2'rrorof/ W/Mr/0222; NT Ne/2)/o2>(=.z'x7,g 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
`
`“TCPIPHLP” file is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b) and the
`
`1\/Iz'c*ro.rof/ Windo272r NT Ne/2)/orkixgg Guide is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`2.
`
`Tevlmiazl 5/andczrd — Pm/ovals‘ for X/ Open PC I72/677)/or;éz'I7<g.' SNIB, Vmiorz 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”)
`
`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.
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`was published and made publicly available in September 1992, and is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(a) and
`
`3.
`
`Pinard
`
`1020) is prior art under at least 35 USC. § 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”); 211.,
`
`1248-50, 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”);
`
`222., 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
`
`1] 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
`
`way to establish point-to-point communications between Computers with dynamic IP
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`addresses. (Id; we (Z/J'0 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
`
`1] 33.)
`
`The ’704 patent claimed to solve that supposed “problem” through the basic
`
`lookup feature described in Figure 8:
`
`START THE PRIMARY
`
`POINT-TO-POINT INT ' ~
`PROTOCOL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TIMESTAMP AND STORE E.-MAIL
`ADRESSES AND IP ADRESSES OF
`LOGGED-IN UNITS IN A DATABASE
`
`RECEIVE ouenv FROM smsr um 63
`WHETHER A SPECIFIED SECOND
`UNIT IS LOGGED-IN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RETRIEVE
`
`IP ADDRESS FRO
`n
`Isl
`
`SEND RETRIEVED IP ADRESS TO
`FIRST UNIT TO ESTABLISH POINT-
`T-POINT OONNECTIN
`
`70
`
`72
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 8; Ex. 100211 34.)
`
`FIG. 8
`
`1.
`
`Step 1: Processing Units Obtain Dynamically Assigned IP
`Addresses
`
`When :1 “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 [processing
`
`5 For convenience, the term “processing unit” is used in Sections V and VI.
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`unit]
`
`is provided a dynamically allocated IP address by a connection Service
`
`Provider.” (Ex. 1001, 5:21-24; 4:7-16; Ex. 1002 1] 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;
`
`z'n’., 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
`
`)9
`
`((
`
`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.” (Inl, 5:39-44.) Alternatively, “]\v] 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, 626-9; Ex. 10021] 36.)
`
`3.
`
`Steps 3 & 4: First Processing Unit Sends Query to
`Connection Server, \X’hich 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,
`
`1024-11, 10:28-32; Ex. 1002 1] 37.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): 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; 2277., 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. 1002,1] 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; z'n’., 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 2
`
`manner known in the 211” and “may be conducted 1'11 3 manner known in the 211
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,108,704
`Petition for Inter Pam): Review
`
`between the first and second users through the Internet 24”) (Ex. 1001, 7:60-64, 8:20-
`
`22 (emphasis added).); Ex. 1002 f] 40.)
`
`5.
`
`Using a “User Interface” to Control the Process
`
`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; we gmmzf/y izi, 8:35-
`
`10:3; Ex. 1002 f[ 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 l-ILD icon 44 may be actuated to place a current line
`
`on hold.” (Ir/., 8:57-58; z'r/., 28:8—10;Ex. 10021] 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 duri