Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issued: April 8, 2014
`Filed: September 20, 1999
`Inventor: Daniel L. Marks
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`____________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01155
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`“[first/second] authenticated user identity” (All Petition
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................................................. 1
`A.
`Certification the 657 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner .............. 1
`B.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................... 2
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ................................................ 2
`D.
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ......................................... 3
`III.
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b)) ........................... 3
`IV. Relevant Information Concerning the Patent ............................................. 4
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 5
`C.
`The 657 Patent ....................................................................................... 5
`1. Technical Overview ........................................................................ 5
`2. Prosecution History ......................................................................... 7
`D.
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims ........................................... 8
`1. “an Internet network” (All Petition Claims) ................................... 8
`2. “token” (All Petition Claims) .......................................................... 9
`3. “authenticated [first/second] user identity” and
`Claims) .......................................................................................... 10
`4. “pointer” (Claims 1, 2, 51, 65, 79, 114, 126, 138, 156, 189,
`666, 667, 668, 669, 670) ............................................................... 11
`5. “multimedia” (Claims 1, 43, 189, 220, 353, 465, 649, 650,
`670, 671)........................................................................................ 12
`6. “a pointer-triggered message on demand” (Claims 597,
`606, 616, 625, 633, 641) ............................................................... 12
`
`190, 226, 238, 250, 280, 292, 304, 322, 353, 465, 597, 606,
`616, 625, 633, 641, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656,
`
`651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 659, 660, 666, 667, 668, 669,
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`V.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 189, 353, 465, 597, 606, 616, 625, 633,
`641, 649-663, and 666-671 Are Unpatentable Over Brown in
`
`Precise Reasons for Relief Requested ........................................................ 13
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (Ex.1012) ....... 13
`B.
`Donath et al, The Sociable Web, (“Sociable Web”) (Ex.1019) .......... 17
`C.
`View of the Sociable Web ................................................................... 18
`1. Claim 1 Is Unpatentable ................................................................ 18
`a. Preamble ................................................................................. 18
`b. Affording Information Responsive to Authenticated Identity
` ................................................................................................ 23
`c. Determining Whether Able to Form a Group ........................ 25
`d. Determining Whether Individually Censored from Receiving
`Data ......................................................................................... 27
`e. Forming a Group and Facilitating Receiving ......................... 29
`f.
`Internet URL ........................................................................... 30
`g. Not Presenting Censored Data ............................................... 32
`2. Claim 189 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 32
`a. Preamble ................................................................................. 32
`b. Affording Information Responsive to Authenticated Identity
` ................................................................................................ 32
`c. Determining Whether Able to Form a Group ........................ 33
`d. Determining Whether Individually Censored from Sending
`Data ......................................................................................... 33
`e. Forming a Group and Facilitating Sending ............................ 35
`f.
`Internet URL ........................................................................... 36
`g. Not Allowing Sending Censored Data ................................... 36
`3. Claim 353 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 37
`4. Claim 465 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 38
`5. Claim 597 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 38
`6. Claim 606 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 40
`7. Claim 616 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 40
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`8. Claim 625 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 41
`9. Claim 633 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 41
`10. Claim 641 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 42
`11. Claim 649 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 42
`12. Claim 650 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 43
`13. Claim 651 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 44
`14. Claim 652 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 44
`15. Claim 653 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 45
`16. Claim 654 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 45
`17. Claim 655 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 46
`18. Claim 656 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 46
`19. Claim 657 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 47
`20. Claim 658 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 47
`21. Claim 659 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 48
`22. Claim 660 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 48
`23. Claim 661 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 49
`24. Claims 662 and 663 Are Unpatentable ......................................... 49
`25. Claim 666 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 50
`26. Claim 667 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 50
`27. Claim 668 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 51
`28. Claim 669 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 52
`29. Claim 670 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 53
`30. Claim 671 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 53
`D. Dependent claims 2, 18, 27, 35, 43, 51, 65, 79, 93, 100, 108,
`
`114, 126, 138, 150, 156, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180, 182,
`183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 202, 208, 214, 220, 226,
`238, 250, 262, 268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322, 328, 334,
`336, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350, 352, 354, 362, 366, 370,
`374, 378, 386, 394, 402, 406, 410, 414, 422, 430, 438, 442,
`450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464, 466, 476, 481, 486,
`491, 496, 505, 515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580,
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`582, 584, 586, 588, 590, 592, 594, 596, 598, 607, 615, 617,
`619, 621, 622, 624, 626, 628, 630, 632, 634, 636, 638, 640,
`642, 644, 646, 648, 664 and 665 Are Unpatentable Over
`
`Brown in View of Sociable Web ......................................................... 54
`1. Dependent Claims 2, 190, 354, 466 – Pointer .............................. 54
`2. Dependent Claims 51, 226, 378, 496 – Pointer and Video ........... 55
`3. Dependent Claims 65, 238, 386, 505 – Pointer and Audio .......... 55
`4. Dependent Claims 79, 250, 394, 515 – Pointer and Graphic ....... 55
`5. Dependent Claims 114, 280, 414, 535 – Pointer, Video, and
`Audio ............................................................................................. 56
`6. Dependent Claims 126, 292, 422, 545 – Pointer, Video, and
`Graphic .......................................................................................... 56
`7. Dependent Claims 138, 304, 430, 555 – Pointer, Audio, and
`Graphic .......................................................................................... 56
`8. Dependent Claims 156, 322, 442, 570 – Pointer, Video,
`Audio, and Graphic ....................................................................... 57
`9. Dependent Claims 18, 202, 362, 476, 619, 628, 636, 646 –
`Video ............................................................................................. 57
`10. Dependent Claims 27, 208, 366, 481, 617, 626, 634, 642,
`644 – Audio ................................................................................... 57
`11. Dependent Claims 35, 214, 370, 486 – Graphic ........................... 58
`12. Dependent Claims 43, 220, 374, 491 – Multimedia ..................... 58
`13. Dependent Claims 93, 262, 402, 525, 621, 630, 638 – Video
`and Audio ...................................................................................... 58
`14. Dependent Claims 100, 268, 406, 530 – Video and Graphic ....... 59
`15. Dependent Claims 108, 274, 410 – Audio and Graphic ............... 59
`16. Dependent Claims 150, 316, 438, 565 – Video, Audio, and
`Graphic .......................................................................................... 60
`17. Dependent Claims 168, 334, 454, 456, 580 – Two Client
`Software Alternatives Allow At Least One Group ....................... 60
`18. Dependent Claim 184 – No Censored Data .................................. 62
`19. Dependent Claims 172, 336, 450, 582 – Censor Based on
`Content .......................................................................................... 62
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`20. Dependent Claims 176, 665 – Parameter for First User
`Identity .......................................................................................... 62
`21. Dependent Claim 624 – Parameter for First User Identity
`and Presenting Graphical Multimedia .......................................... 63
`22. Dependent Claim 178 – Able to Form a Group – Neither
`User Identity Censored .................................................................. 63
`23. Dependent Claims 180, 340 – User Age ....................................... 64
`24. Dependent Claim 183 – Presentation of Communications ........... 64
`25. Dependent Claims 185, 344 – Internet Service Provider .............. 64
`26. Dependent Claims 186, 346, 458, 590, 615, 622, 632 –
`Presentation of Graphical Multimedia .......................................... 65
`27. Dependent Claims 187, 348, 460, 592, 640, 648 – Member-
`Associated Image .......................................................................... 66
`28. Dependent Claims 188, 350, 462, 594 – Access to Member-
`Associated Image Based on Censorship ....................................... 67
`29. Dependent Claims 328, 586, 588 – Determine Neither User
`Identity Is Censored ...................................................................... 67
`30. Dependent Claims 342, 584 – Human Communication of
`Sound ............................................................................................. 68
`31. Dependent Claim 452 – Censored From Sending Pointer,
`Video, Graphic, Multimedia; Sending Non-Censored .................. 68
`32. Dependent Claim 352 – Censored From Sending Pointer,
`Video, Audio, Graphic, Multimedia ............................................. 68
`33. Dependent Claims 182, 664 – Censored From Receiving
`Pointer, Video, Audio, Graphic, Multimedia ................................ 69
`34. Dependent Claims 464, 596 – Censored From Receiving
`and Sending Pointer, Video, Audio, Graphic, Multimedia ........... 69
`35. Dependent Claims 170, 598, 607 – Real-Time Via Internet
`Network ......................................................................................... 69
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 70
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Examiner of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 (“the 657 Patent”) allowed the
`
`patent due to one limitation: “wherein the facilitating receiving the
`
`communications that are sent from the second participator computer to the first
`
`participator computer includes facilitating receiving communications that include
`
`an Internet URL, and further including handling the Internet URL via the controller
`
`computer system so as to find content specified to by the Internet URL, and
`
`facilitating presenting the content at the output device.” Ex.1002 at 420. Because,
`
`as shown below, the prior art discloses this conventional functionality regarding
`
`handling a URL, which was the basis for allowing all of the claims of the 657
`
`Patent allowable, the claims of the 657 Patent challenged herein are unpatentable.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification the 657 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies that the 657 Patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner, has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of the 657 Patent that could implicate the bar of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(a). The 657 Patent has not been the subject of a prior inter partes review by
`
`Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within
`
`one year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent that
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`could implicate the bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner was served on June 3,
`
`2015, with a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
`
`Carolina alleging infringement of the 657 Patent (No. 1:15-CV-00103-GCM).1
`
`Because the date of this petition is not more than one year from date of service of
`
`the complaint, this petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`The real party of interest of this petition is Microsoft Corporation, located at
`
`One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. Lead and backup lead counsel are as
`
`follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`John W. McBride
`pro hac to be requested
`(312) 853-7014
`
`Raquel C. Rodriguez
`Reg. No. 70,787
`(312) 853-7692
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`
`
`1 This case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California (No.
`
`4:16-cv-1729-YGR).
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Todd M. Siegel
`Reg. No. 73,232
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`(503)595-5300
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax number is
`
`(202)736-8711.
`
`The 657 Patent is or has been the subject of two district court proceedings.
`
`The 657 Patent has also been asserted against Facebook Inc. in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Western District of North Carolina (No. 1:15-CV-00102-GCM).
`
`This case was transferred to the Northern District of California (No. 3:16-cv-
`
`01730-RS).
`
`The 657 Patent and related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,407,356; 8,458,245; and
`
`8,473,552 are the subject of concurrently filed inter partes reviews Nos. 2016-
`
`01137, -01138, -01139, -01140, -01141.
`
`D.
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`
`Independent claims 1, 189, 353, 465, 597, 606, 616, 625, 633, 641, 649-663,
`
`666-671, and dependent claims 2, 18, 27, 35, 43, 51, 65, 79, 93, 100, 108, 114,
`
`126, 138, 150, 156, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180, 182-190, 202, 208, 214, 220,
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`226, 238, 250, 262, 268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322, 328, 334, 336, 340, 342,
`
`344, 346, 348, 350, 352, 354, 362, 366, 370, 374, 378, 386, 394, 402, 406, 410,
`
`414, 422, 430, 438, 442, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464, 466, 476, 481,
`
`486, 491, 496, 505, 515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580, 582, 584, 586,
`
`588, 590, 592, 594, 596, 598, 607, 615, 617, 619, 621, 622, 624, 626, 628, 630,
`
`632, 634, 636, 638, 640, 642, 644, 646, 648, 664 and 665 of the 657 Patent
`
`(collectively the “Petition Claims”) are unpatentable over the prior art.
`
`Specifically, the Petition Claims of the 657 Patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 over U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”), attached hereto as
`
`Ex.1012, in view of Judith S. Donath et al., The Sociable Web, (“Sociable Web”),
`
`attached hereto as Ex.1019.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence
`
`relied upon, and the reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in § IV,
`
`below. The evidence relied upon in this petition is listed in Attachment B.
`
`IV. Relevant Information Concerning the Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date
`The 657 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/399,578 filed on
`
`September 20, 1999. Ex.1001(at 1). The 578 Application is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 08/617,658, which was filed on April 1, 1996. Id. The effective
`
`filing date of the claims of the 657 Patent is no earlier than April 1, 1996.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art for the 657 Patent in 1996 would have
`
`been a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, or
`
`equivalent, with at least two years’ experience designing and programming
`
`distributed multimedia computer systems, including experience with
`
`teleconferencing and on-line chat systems, such as on-line bulletin boards. Such a
`
`person would also be familiar with the prior art systems described in the 657
`
`Patent’s “Background of the Invention” section. Ex.1003(¶140).
`
`C. The 657 Patent
`1.
`Technical Overview
`The 657 Patent is directed to a computerized system with participator
`
`computers (shown in red in annotated Figure 1 below) and a controller computer
`
`(green) linked by way of a network for communications (blue) involving groups of
`
`some of the participator computers. Ex.1001(1:12-18; 2:11-17). The controller
`
`computer is programmed “to arbitrate in accordance with predefined rules
`
`including said user identity, which ones of the participator computers can interact
`
`in one of a plurality of groups communicating through the controller computer and
`
`to distribute real time data to the respective ones of the groups.” Id.(2:18-24;
`
`Fig.1; 4:36-5:16).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`Ex.1001(Fig.1).
`
`The 657 Patent also explains that “participator software” (yellow) runs on
`
`each of the participator computers to permit users to interact with the system and
`
`“to send and/or receive a multimedia information message[s] to the controller
`
`computer, which arbitrates which of the participator computers receives the
`
`multimedia information message.” Ex.1001(2:25-39). The controller computer
`
`stores “tokens” in a database, “which are pieces of information associated with
`
`user identity” and which “can be by user, group, and content.” Ex.1001(7:49-59).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`The controller computer uses tokens to control communication among the
`
`participator computers, including “what is said in a group,” which the patent refers
`
`to as “censorship.” Id.(8:10-33).
`
`The 657 Patent discloses that multimedia information is communicated by
`
`way of “pointers” such as URLs. Ex.1001(5:11-16; 10:18-43). Other than sending
`
`multimedia as URLs pointing to pre-stored files, the 657 Patent identifies no other
`
`way of sending multimedia. Ex.1003(¶67).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`2.
`The 657 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/399,578, filed on
`
`September 20, 1999 and claiming priority as a continuation from an application
`
`filed on April 1, 1996. Ex.1001(at 1). During prosecution, among other rejections,
`
`various claims were finally rejected as obvious over Brown in view of Tarau et al.,
`
`LogiMOO: an Extensible Multi-user Virtual World with Natural Language
`
`Control. Ex.1002(at 846-56). Simultaneously, the examiner noted that certain
`
`claims, including claim 18, were objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. Id.(at 845). The applicant responded by submitting an
`
`amendment and a declaration by Dr. Hollaar arguing that Brown does not disclose
`
`“in the communications,” the examiner improperly combined the separate steps of
`
`forming groups and censoring, and the motivation to modify Brown provided by
`
`the Examiner was improper. Id.(at 669-33). After receiving a subsequent final
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`office action, the applicant amended each independent claim to include the
`
`limitation of objected claim 18 regarding handling receiving a URL. Id.(at 204-
`
`374). Based upon these amendments, the Examiner allowed the claims. Id.(at
`
`845-46; 149-57).
`
`D. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`In this proceeding, as the 657 Patent has expired, the claims must be
`
`interpreted in accord with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`See In re Rambus Inc. 753 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`1.
`“an Internet network” (All Petition Claims)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “an Internet network” is a network connected
`
`to the Internet. Ex.1003(¶¶110-114).
`
`The 657 claims recite “an Internet network.” This is different from simply
`
`“the Internet,” which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean
`
`a network of networks. Ex.1005(Mosaic Quick Tour for Windows) at 8;
`
`Ex.1003(¶111). Interpreting “an Internet network” to mean simply “the Internet”
`
`would read “network” out of the claims. The natural reading of this term to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be that it refers to some network that is
`
`connected with the Internet. Ex.1003(¶111). Thus, the ordinary meaning of “an
`
`Internet network” is a network connected to the Internet.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which explains that the connection
`
`between the controller computer and participator computer can, but need not be, an
`
`Internet connection. See, e.g., Ex.1001(7:39-48; Abstract). The 657 Patent also
`
`states, with respect to the general description of the disclosed system, that “[t]he
`
`Connection 13 [i.e., between the controller computer and the participator
`
`computers] can be an Internet or more particularly, a World Wide Web
`
`connection.” Ex.1001(4:59-60). A person of ordinary skill would understand that
`
`an Internet or World Wide Web connection would be made via one or more
`
`computer networks that were connected to the Internet – such as a user’s specific
`
`Internet service provider or telephone service provider – and would not necessarily
`
`pass through all networks that make up the Internet. Ex.1003(¶113). Thus, in this
`
`example, the 657 Patent discloses communications over a network connected to the
`
`Internet, i.e., “an Internet network.”
`
`2.
`“token” (All Petition Claims)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “token” is a piece of information used to
`
`control access to content or one or more services. Ex.1003(¶¶115-117)
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which characterizes “tokens” as
`
`“pieces of information,” Ex.1001(7:51), that are stored in a database, id.(7:49-59),
`
`and may be manipulated by an administrator, id.(10:44-53). The patent further
`
`states that the storage of tokens may be “by user, group, and content, and
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`distribution controls can also be placed on the user's tokens as well as the
`
`database.” Id.(7:57-59). The 657 patent further states that tokens are used to
`
`control access to services of the system, such as the ability to communicate with or
`
`see other users, and the ability to send messages of different sizes or types.
`
`Id.(7:60-8:25).
`
`3.
`
`“authenticated [first/second] user identity” and “[first/second]
`authenticated user identity” (All Petition Claims)
`
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “authenticated user identity” is identifying
`
`information the system has confirmed is associated with a user who may be
`
`provided at least some access to the services of the system. Ex.1003(¶¶118-121).
`
`The 657 claims recite “authenticated [first/second] user identity.” A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand “authentication” refers to the process
`
`by which a system verifies a user seeking access to the system is authorized to
`
`access the system. See, e.g., Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 31; Ex.1010(Newton’s
`
`Dictionary) at 102; Ex.1003(¶119). For example, the system may compare the
`
`user’s credentials (i.e., information identifying the user) with those on file in a
`
`database of authorized users. See Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 31; see also
`
`Ex.1007(Inside Windows 95) at 366; Ex.1008(Inside Windows NT) at 76. Thus,
`
`the ordinary meaning of “authenticated user identity” is identifying information
`
`the system has confirmed is associated with a user who may be provided at least
`
`some access to the services of the system.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which explains that access to the
`
`system can be controlled “by identity of the user, which is associated with the
`
`user’s tokens.” Ex.1001(8:12-13). “[T]he session starts with verifying the user’s
`
`identity” after “the user enters his/her assigned login/password combination.”
`
`Id.(8:57-61). Thus, the 657 Patent describes using identifying information
`
`associated with a user to grant or deny access to the system.
`
`4.
`
`“pointer” (Claims 1, 2, 51, 65, 79, 114, 126, 138, 156, 189,
`190, 226, 238, 250, 280, 292, 304, 322, 353, 465, 597, 606,
`616, 625, 633, 641, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656,
`666, 667, 668, 669, 670)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “pointer” is a link or reference to a file, data,
`
`or service. Ex.1003(¶¶122-124).
`
`In the field of computer programming, “pointer” is a term of art that refers to
`
`a variable that contains a reference to the memory location of some other data.
`
`E.g., Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 308. The 657 Patent uses the term “pointer” in a
`
`broader sense than this definition, however, because it indicates that a “pointer”
`
`can include a URL. Ex.1001(5:11-16). A URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a
`
`string of text that is used to point to a resource available on the Internet (e.g.,
`
`http://www.microsoft.com), such as a file, data or a service. Ex.1011 at 1, 4-15;
`
`Ex.1003(¶123). Because the 657 Patent gives a URL as an example of a “pointer,”
`
`the broadest reasonable construction of this term must encompass the functionality
`
`provided by URLs.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`5.
`
`“multimedia” (Claims 1, 43, 189, 220, 353, 465, 649, 650,
`651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 659, 660, 666, 667, 668, 669,
`670, 671)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “multimedia” is media comprising more than
`
`one data type, such as audio, video, or text, or a link to such media.
`
`Ex.1003(¶¶125-129).
`
`The ordinary meaning of the term “multimedia” to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the mid-1990s was media comprising more than one data type, such as
`
`audio, video, graphics or text. Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 264; Ex.1003(¶126).
`
`The 657 Patent does not define the term “multimedia,” but it does identify
`
`“video and sound” and URLs as examples of multimedia content. Ex.1001(8:47-
`
`56). Thus, as used in the context of the 657 Patent the term “multimedia”
`
`generally tracks the ordinary meaning of the term to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, i.e., more than one medium, where the different media can include at least
`
`audio, video, or text. The specification also explicitly states that a URL is a type of
`
`multimedia. Ex.1001(8:54-56). Thus, links or references to multimedia are
`
`themselves considered to be multimedia for the purposes of the 657 Patent,
`
`because, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, URLs are
`
`simply strings of text. See Ex.1011 at 1, 14; Ex.1003(¶128).
`
`6.
`
`“a pointer-triggered message on demand” (Claims 597, 606,
`616, 625, 633, 641)
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “a pointer-triggered message on demand” is
`
`a message, where the content of the message is specified by a pointer and found on
`
`demand of the operator of the participator software. Ex.1003(¶¶130-138).
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which refers to a URL as a form of
`
`pointer. Ex.1001(8:47-56). Thus a “URL-triggered message” is an example of a
`
`“pointer-triggered message.” The 657 Patent also includes several passages that
`
`describe the use of URLs with messages. For example, if a URL is detected in a
`
`message received by a participator computer, the computer invokes a data viewer
`
`for that message “only on demand” of the computer operator. Ex.1001(7:26-31).
`
`The 657 Patent also explains that where the content of a multimedia message is a
`
`URL, that URL permits the controller computer to determine whether to pass the
`
`message directly to the recipient participator computer or determine “how to find
`
`the content.” Id.(8:47-54).
`
`V.
`
`Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (Ex.1012)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) was filed on August
`
`18, 1995, Ex.1012 at 1, and is therefore prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Brown discloses an “on-line services network” comprising multiple
`
`application servers running on-line services such as chat, mail, bulletin board
`
`systems (“BBS”), and file transfer manager (“FTM”) services. Ex.1012(2:19-25,
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`2:36-39). Users access the on-line services and content by connecting to the
`
`servers through a wide area network (“WAN”). Ex.1012(2:26-36; 6:62-66). The
`
`WAN may include, for example, “X.25 lines, TCP/IP lines, and ISDN (Integrated
`
`Service Digital Network) lines.” Ex.1012(7:4-6); Ex.1003(¶143)
`
`Brown’s on-line services network is illustrated in Fig. 1:
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Ex.1012(Fig. 1). The Chat service may include voice and/or video capabilities.
`
`
`
`Id.(9:54-55).
`
`Brown’s network includes multiple gateway computers th