throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 9
`
` Filed: May 25, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, and
`Preliminary Response identify Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg
`S.A. as patent owners. Paper 4; Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”) at caption.
`Therefore, we adjust the case caption to include Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1–6, 14, 15, 17–20, 28, 29, 31–34, 40–43, 51–54, 62–65,
`and 68 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’890 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Prelim. Resp.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” For the reasons given below, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing
`that all challenged claims of the ’890 patent are unpatentable, and we
`institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. RELATED MATTERS
`Petitioner represents that the ’890 patent is the subject of numerous
`
`ongoing actions before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas, including an action filed against Petitioner (Case No. 2-16-cv-
`00638). Pet. 71–72; see Paper 4, 2. Before the Office, the ’890 patent also
`is the subject of IPR2017-00220, which Petitioner filed concurrently with
`the instant proceeding. See Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 1 & n.1.
`B. THE ’890 PATENT
`The ’890 patent explains that “[v]oice messaging” and “instant text
`messaging” in both the Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and public
`switched telephone network environments are known. Ex. 1001, 2:11–35.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`In prior art instant text messaging systems, a server presents a user of a
`client terminal with a “list of persons who are currently ‘online’ and ready to
`receive text messages,” the user “select[s] one or more” recipients and types
`the message, and the server immediately sends the message to the respective
`client terminals. Id. at 2:23–35. According to the ’890 patent, however,
`“there is still a need in the art for . . . a system and method for providing
`instant VoIP messaging over an IP network,” such as the Internet.
`Id. at 1:6–11, 2:36–48, 6:37–39.
`In one embodiment, the ’890 patent discloses local instant voice
`messaging (“IVM”) system 200, depicted in Figure 2 below. Id. at 6:12–14.
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2, local packet-switched IP network 204, which may
`be a local area network (“LAN”), “interconnects” IVM clients 206, 208 and
`legacy telephone 110 to local IVM server 202. Id. at 6:40–61; see id.
`at 7:13–14, 7:51–55. Local IVM server 202 enables instant voice messaging
`functionality over network 204. Id. at 7:53–55.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`In “record mode,” IVM client 208, exemplified as a VoIP softphone
`
`in Figure 2, “displays a list of one or more IVM recipients,” provided and
`stored by local IVM server 202, and the user selects recipients from the list.
`Id. at 7:47–49, 7:55–61. IVM client 208 then transmits the selections to
`IVM server 202 and “records the user’s speech into . . . digitized audio
`file 210 (i.e., an instant voice message).” Id. at 7:61–8:1.
`When the recording is complete, IVM client 208 transmits audio
`file 210 to local IVM server 202, which delivers the message to the selected
`recipients via local IP network 204. Id. at 8:5−19. “[O]nly the available
`IVM recipients, currently connected to . . . IVM server 202, will receive the
`instant voice message.” Id. at 8:23−25. IVM server 202 “temporarily saves
`the instant voice message” for any IVM client that is “not currently
`connected to . . . local IVM server 202 (i.e., is unavailable)” and “delivers it
`. . . when the IVM client connects to . . . local IVM server 202 (i.e., is
`available).” Id. at 8:24–29; see id. at 9:7–11. Upon receiving the instant
`voice message, the recipients can audibly play the message. Id. at 8:19–22.
`In another embodiment, the ’890 patent discusses global IVM
`system 500. Id. at 15:24–28, Fig. 5. Global IVM system 500 includes a
`local IVM system, such as local IVM system 200, and global IVM server
`system 502, with global IVM clients 506, 508. Id. at 15:25–33. Both the
`local and global IVM systems are connected to “packet-switched
`network 102 (i.e., Internet)” to enable the local and global IVM clients to be
`able to exchange instant voice messages with one another. Id. at 15:25–38.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 14, 28, 40, 51, and 62 of the
`’890 patent are independent. Claims 1 and 28, reproduced below, are
`illustrative of the recited subject matter:
`1. An instant voice messaging system for delivering instant
`messages over a packet-switched network,
`the
`system
`comprising:
`a client connected to the network, the client selecting one or
`more recipients, generating an instant voice message
`therefor, and transmitting the selected recipients and the
`instant voice message therefor over the network; and
`a server connected to the network, the server receiving the
`selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor,
`and delivering the instant voice message to the selected
`recipients over the network, the selected recipients enabled
`to audibly play the instant voice message, and the server
`temporarily storing the instant voice message if a selected
`recipient is unavailable and delivering the stored instant
`voice message to the selected recipient once the selected
`recipient becomes available.
`
`28. An instant voice messaging system for delivering instant
`messages over a plurality of packet-switched networks, the
`system comprising:
`a client connected to an external network, the client selecting
`one or more recipients connected to a local network,
`generating an
`instant voice message
`therefor, and
`transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice
`message therefor over the external network; and
`a external server system connected to the external network,
`the external server system receiving the selected recipients
`and the instant voice message, and routing the selected
`recipients and the instant voice message over the external
`network and the local network;
`a local server connected to the local network, the local server
`receiving the selected recipients and the instant voice
`message therefor, and delivering the instant voice message
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`to the selected recipients over the local network, the
`selected recipients being enabled to audibly play the
`instant voice message, and the local server temporarily
`storing the instant voice message if a selected recipient is
`unavailable and delivering the stored instant voice message
`to the selected recipient once the selected recipient
`becomes available.
`Id. at 23:55–24:3, 27:6–28.
`D. EVIDENCE OF RECORD
`The Petition relies upon the following asserted prior art references:
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 B2 (filed Aug. 19, 2002) (issued Oct. 17,
`2006) (Ex. 1007, “Malik”);
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 02/17658 A1 (published
`Feb. 28, 2002) (Ex. 1008, “Väänänen”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0046273 A1 (published
`Mar. 6, 2003) (Ex. 1009, “Deshpande”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068545 A1 (filed Dec. 19,
`2002) (published Apr. 8, 2004) (Ex. 1010, “Daniell”); and
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0147512 A1 (published
`Aug. 7, 2003) (Ex. 1015, “Abburi”).
`
`In addition, Petitioner supports its contentions with the Declaration of
`Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`E. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under
`35 U.S.C. § 103.2 Pet. 3.
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29,
`125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the patent application resulting in the ’890 patent was filed
`before the effective date of the relevant section of the AIA, we refer to the
`pre-AIA version of § 103 throughout this decision.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1–3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 19, 28, 29,
`31, 33, 40, 42, 51, 53, 62, 64
`4, 18, 32, 41, 52, 63
`
`6, 20, 34, 43, 54, 65
`68
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103 Malik and Väänänen
`
`§ 103 Malik, Väänänen, and
`Deshpande
`§ 103 Malik, Väänänen, and Abburi
`§ 103 Malik, Väänänen, Abburi,
`and Daniell
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Petitioner argues and Dr. Forys opines that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have had “the equivalent of a Bachelor degree in Electrical
`Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3−5
`years of academic or industry experience in communications systems,”
`particularly messaging systems and data networks, including VoIP and
`mobile telephony, “or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1003
`¶ 30. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s proffered level of
`ordinary skill in the art or offer a proposal of its own.
`Based on Dr. Forys’s testimony as well as our review of the
`’890 patent and the asserted prior art, including the problems and solutions
`described therein, we are persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner’s proposal
`is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of
`record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). For
`purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board interprets claim terms of an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`2144–46 (2016). Under this standard, we presume a claim term carries its
`“ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner proposes a construction of “external network,” as recited in
`challenged claims 14, 17, 28, 31, 51, and 62 of the ’890 patent. Pet. 9–12.
`Patent Owner responds that no construction of this claim term is necessary.
`Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Patent Owner does not proffer any terms for
`construction. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine
`that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the issues
`currently presented by the patentability challenges. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that
`only claim terms that “are in controversy” need to be construed and “only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`C. DISCRETION TO DECLINE TO INSTITUTE (35 U.S.C. §§ 314(A), 325(D);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(A))
`Patent Owner urges us to decline to institute the Petition for two
`reasons. Prelim. Resp. 9–18. First, Patent Owner contends that the Petition
`is nearly identical to the petition filed in IPR2017-00220, which challenges
`the same claims of the ’890 patent based on the same prior art references
`except that Malik is replaced with U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2002/0146097 A1 (Exhibit 1005, “Vuori”). Id. at 9–11. Patent Owner
`argues that although Petitioner represents that Malik teaches the “local
`server” recited in independent claims 28 and 62 and dependent claim 15
`more clearly than Vuori, this is merely a “contrived explanation for its
`redundancy” for a subset of the challenged claims that does not justify
`dedicating the Board’s resources to the duplicative two asserted grounds per
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`claim. Id. at 12–13, 16–17. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s
`backup arguments within the instant Petition, which assert that alternative
`prior art references teach various limitations of the challenged claims, create
`an unnecessary multiplication of work for the Board and Patent Owner. Id.
`at 13–15.
`
`Here, across the concurrently filed petitions in the instant proceeding
`and IPR2017-00220, Petitioner asserts a total of two grounds of
`unpatentability for each of the twenty-nine challenged claims. E.g., Pet. 2–
`4. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that these cases
`present an unjustified duplication of asserted grounds, given that each
`petition explicitly addresses relative strengths and weaknesses of Malik, the
`main asserted prior art reference in the instant case, and Vuori, the main
`asserted prior art reference in IPR2017-00220. E.g., id. More importantly,
`in our institution decision in IPR2017-00220, issued simultaneously with
`this decision, we determine Petitioner has not met its burden for institution
`as to any of the challenged claims, and do not institute inter partes review in
`that case. In light of the denial of institution in IPR2017-00220, Patent
`Owner’s allegations of an unnecessary multiplicity of asserted grounds,
`however unpersuasive before, are now a moot concern. Moreover, we are
`not aware of any other proceedings challenging the ’890 patent before the
`Office. Under the circumstances of this case and having considered Patent
`Owner’s assertions on the issue, we decline to exercise our discretion not to
`institute the Petition. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Second, Patent Owner asks us to decline to institute under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d), because a continuation application of Malik, which shares Malik’s
`specification, was considered during prosecution of the ’890 patent and is
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`listed on the face of the ’890 patent. Prelim. Resp. 15–16; see Ex. 1001,
`[56]. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), “[i]n determining whether to institute
`. . . a proceeding . . . , the Director may take into account whether, and reject
`the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art
`or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`Here, Patent Owner provides no details regarding the extent to which
`the continuation application of Malik was considered and relied upon during
`prosecution. Based on our review of the prosecution history, we find that
`the application was cited twice in a Notice of References Cited and
`mentioned once in an Office Action in which the Examiner stated that the
`reference was “not relied upon” but was “considered pertinent to the
`applicant’s disclosure.” Ex. 1002, 47, 195, 197. Having considered these
`citations to—without any evident substantive analysis or reliance upon—the
`continuation application of Malik during prosecution, we determine that
`rejection of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not warranted.
`D. ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MALIK AND VÄÄNÄNEN
`Petitioner argues Malik and Väänänen render obvious claims 1–3, 5,
`14, 15, 17, 19, 28, 29, 31, 33, 40, 42, 51, 53, 62, and 64. Pet. 19–58.
`1. Overview of Malik
`
`Malik explains that in many prior art instant-messaging (“IM”)
`systems, including Jabber, when an instant message is sent to a user that is
`not present on the network, servers have the capability to hold the message
`in a queue and deliver it “to the user as soon as the user is present.”
`Ex. 1007, 2:40–41, 2:60–67, 3:16–23. Figure 2 of Malik is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a prior art IM network using the Jabber “client-server”
`architecture, which contains “distributed network servers,” namely local
`Jabber servers 215–217, and Jabber clients 200–205. Id. at 2:49–3:1, 3:66–
`67. Clients 200–205 send and receive messages, and Jabber servers 215–
`217 deliver the messages in “real time.” Id. at 2:56–67. “Each local Jabber
`server 200–205 performs two main functions: listening for and
`communicating directly with Jabber client applications 200–205, and
`communicating with other Jabber servers 215–217” that are “connected to
`the Internet.” Id. at 3:5–12; see id. at 2:58–59.
`
`According to Malik, prior art IM systems do not allow non-text instant
`messages, such as voice instant messages (“VIM”), to be “stored in a queue
`for later immediate delivery” when the recipient becomes available. Id.
`at 3:24–31. Malik seeks to address this alleged need in the art with its
`disclosed systems and methods for generating and sending voice instant
`messages. Id. at [57], 3:24–46. Figure 3 of Malik is included below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of a representative embodiment of voice
`message delivery system 300, which includes VIM client 310 of a first user,
`VIM client 320 of a second user, and VIM server 330. Id. at 4:25–35.
`“Each VIM client 310, 320 communicates with . . . VIM server 330 via the
`Internet or some other communication network 325.” Id. at 4:42–44.
`The VIM clients are configured to “receive and play a voice recording
`. . . in a voice instant message” as well as “to generate a voice recording . . .
`and include the voice recording in an instant message upon accepting a VIM
`invitation.” Id. at 4:29–37; see id. at 6:65–67, Fig. 5. A VIM invitation is a
`message transmitted from one VIM client to another that “invites or
`prompts” the generation of a voice recording, for example, from VIM
`client 310 of the first user to VIM client 320 of the second user “invit[ing] or
`prompt[ing] . . . VIM client 320 . . . to generate a voice recording for the first
`user.” Id. at 4:37–41.
`
`VIM server 330 “may act as a single IM server . . . or a local IM
`server, such as . . . Jabber Server 215 of F[igure] 2.” Id. at 4:45–47. “VIM
`server 330 includes the capabilities of conventional IM servers and the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`additional capabilities for handling VIM . . . delivery and storage.” Id.
`at 4:51–53. In a preferred embodiment, when a user is not present and
`available, a voice instant message may be stored in queue 340 of VIM
`server 330 and “delivered to the user the next time that the user connects to”
`the network. Id. at 5:20–24.
`
`Malik explains “the functionality of a representative implementation”
`of voice message delivery system 300. Id. at 4:4–6; see id. at 5:43–6:64,
`Fig. 4. A first user “authorizes” users from whom it “will accept voice
`messages,” for example, by specifying users in its contact list (block 410).
`Id. at 4:56–63, Fig. 4. As a result of this authorization, if an authorized user
`attempts to send an instant message to the first user when the first user “is
`not present and/or available, the authorized user may be given the
`opportunity to generate a voice instant message for the first user.” Id.
`at 5:66–6:4.
`
`“[L]ater,” VIM client 320 of the second user “receives a request or
`prompt by the second user to send an instant message to the first user”
`(block 420). Id. at 5:66–6:9, Fig. 4; see id. at 12:51–52, 14:12–13. Such a
`request typically “is generated after the second user attempts to initiate the
`transmission of the instant message.” Id. at 6:9–11. VIM client 320 detects
`that the first user “is not present and/or available” and then checks if it is
`“capable of generating a voice recording” as well as the voice contact
`parameters of the first user to see if “the second user is authorized . . . to
`leave a voice instant message for the first user” (blocks 425, 430, 435, 440,
`445). Id. at 6:11–23, Fig. 4. If so, VIM client 320 “invites or prompts the
`second user to leave a voice message” for the first user (block 450). Id.
`at 6:31–35, Fig. 4. “[I]f the second user accepts the VIM invitation,” the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`second user “generates a voice recording” (block 460). Id. at 6:39–46.
`After a voice instant message is generated from the recording (block 470),
`the message is sent to VIM server 330 and stored in VIM queue 340
`(block 475). Id. at 6:47–59. Next, “VIM server 350 detects when the first
`user is present and/or available to receive instant messages again”
`(block 480). Id. at 6:59–62; see id. at 7:1–3. After the first user becomes
`present, VIM server 330 “delivers the voice instant message” from its
`queue 340 to VIM client 310 of the first user (block 485). Id. at 6:62–64,
`7:3–5, Fig. 5.
`
`2. Overview of Väänänen
`Väänänen discloses a “server centric method” for instant voicemail
`
`messaging. Ex. 1008, [57], 1:13–16. In one disclosed method of sending
`voice messages, the user first chooses one or several message recipients at
`the subscriber terminal (phase 110). Id. at 6:5–11, Fig. 1. This recipient
`selection may occur through the “simple press of a button,” “labeling the
`recipient with a pointer from the ‘contacts’ file of the terminal device,”
`“speech recognition, a dedicated keyboard accelerator, hot key, dedicated
`key,” or any combination thereof. Id. at 6:5–11; see id. at 2:28–29. Then,
`the subscriber terminal may establish a packet-switched connection to the
`server, which may be implemented using, for example, LAN, TCP/IP, or
`General Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”) (phase 120). Id. at 6:17–23. Next,
`the recipient contact information, such as IP address, is transferred to the
`server (phase 130). Id. at 6:25–32; see id. at 2:31–32. The voice message is
`then recorded and written to a data file, such as a Waveform Audio File
`Format (“WAV”) file (phase 140). Id. at 7:10–13; see id. at 3:3–5.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`After the message is completed and the connection is disconnected
`(phase 150), the server relays the message to the recipient(s) (phase 160).
`Id. at 7:16–26. “If the recipient terminal is capable of receiving the data file,
`which means typically having a packet[-]switched access to the recipient
`device,” as opposed to a circuit-switched connection, “the message may be
`sent with a[] packet[-]switched connection, like IP, through the Internet, or
`through some other closed network.” Id. at 7:25–32. Next, the recipient(s)
`receive the message (phase 170). Id. at 8:9–10. “If the recipient is
`unavailable, the message may be stored on the server for some time, and
`attempts to deliver the message may be taken at timely intervals.” Id.
`at 8:17–18. The server may send delivery status information to the sending
`terminal, such as “which messages got delivered, which did not, and how
`long will the messages remain in the network.” Id. at 8:20–24.
`
`Väänänen also discloses a “more scalable messaging method,” which
`utilizes a Store and Forward Server Network (“SFSN”). Id. at 5:17–18, 9:1–
`10, Fig. 2. “The SFSN is typically a network of servers linked together
`through the Internet . . . or some other communications or signal[]ing
`network.” Id. at 9:14–18. The communications connections within the
`SFSN as well as between the terminals and the servers are typically
`compliant with, for example, GPRS, LAN, or TCP/IP. Id. at 16:19–23.
`“[T]he servers in the SFSN typically deliver a copy of the message to a
`server near a recipient, and this server attempts to relay the message to
`the . . . recipient” over, for example, a packet-switched connection
`(phase 270). Id. at 9:20–25. Undelivered messages are stored on the SFSN
`(phase 280) and resent (phase 290). Id. at 9:25–29, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`3. Discussion
`A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if
`“the differences between” the claimed subject matter “and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As the Supreme Court
`explained in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), an
`invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
`prior art.” 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason
`that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. In
`other words, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see In re Magnum Oil
`Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`a. Disputed Limitations
`Patent Owner substantively addresses and disputes only limitations of
`
`challenged independent claims 28 and 62 and dependent claim 15 of the
`’890 patent. Prelim. Resp. 18, 21, 23, 26, 28. Patent Owner, however,
`contends that the substantive deficiencies it alleges apply to other challenged
`claims. See id. at 18 (“Notably, the substantive deficiencies identified herein
`similarly apply to most, if not all, of the other challenged claims . . . .”); id.
`at 23, 28. Accordingly, in our analysis below, we treat Patent Owner’s
`arguments as applying to each challenged claim that recites limitations
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`corresponding to those of claims 15, 28, and 62 for which Patent Owner
`specifically contests Petitioner’s showing.
`i. Selecting One or More Recipients (Independent Claims 1,
`14, 28, 40, 51, and 62, Dependent Claims 15 and 29)
`Challenged independent claims 1, 14, 28, 40, 51, and 62 and
`dependent claims 15 and 29 each recite a limitation directed to recipient
`selection by the client. In particular, claims 1 and 28 each recite “the client
`selecting one or more recipients.” Ex. 1001, 23:58–60, 27:9–10. Claim 40
`similarly includes the step of “selecting one or more recipients for instant
`voice messaging at a client.” Id. at 28:23–24. Independent claims 14, 51,
`and 62, as well as dependent claims 15 and 29, feature similar recipient
`selection limitations that specify the recipient location, such as “external
`recipients connected to an external network” or local “recipients connected
`to a local network.” Id. at 25:24–43, 27:29–31, 30:10–11, 32:9–10.
`In addressing these limitations, Petitioner refers to Malik’s disclosure
`that “VIM client 320 of the second user receives a request or prompt by the
`second user to send” a message to the first user. Pet. 23, 27 (quoting
`Ex. 1007, 6:7–9); see id. at 36–39, 41–47, 50–58. According to Petitioner
`and Dr. Forys, given that “Malik does not explain in detail” how the second
`user “could input information to VIM client 320 to designate the first user”
`as the message recipient, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to seek out ways in which a user could do so, such as Väänänen’s
`teachings. Id. at 23, 27; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 261, 269. Petitioner asserts and
`Dr. Forys opines that Väänänen discloses various well-known techniques to
`input recipient information by selection, i.e., “to select at least one recipient”
`for an instant voice message. Pet. 23–24, 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1008, 2:28–
`29, 6:5–11); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 261–262, 269–270.
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Forys represent that it would have been obvious to
`incorporate Väänänen’s teaching of recipient selection into Malik’s system
`because not only do the references apply similar techniques to instant voice
`message delivery, but also a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that such incorporation would “improve usability” and be “more
`convenient.” Pet. 24, 28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 263–265, 271–272. As support,
`Petitioner refers to Väänänen’s statement that recipient selection can consist
`of a “simple press of a button.” Pet. 24, 28 (quoting Ex. 1008, 2:31–32);
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 263, 271–272. In addition, Petitioner argues and Dr. Forys
`opines that incorporating Väänänen’s recipient selection techniques into
`Malik’s system would have been nothing more than applying a known
`technique to a “known method (Malik’s request or prompt to send a message
`to a recipient” ready for improvement “to yield predictable results (request
`or prompt to send a message to a recipient by selection),” making it obvious
`under KSR. Pet. 24 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 263, 272.
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proffered motivation to combine
`Väänänen’s teaching of recipient selection with Malik’s system. Prelim.
`Resp. 23, 25. Patent Owner focuses on Malik’s disclosures regarding a VIM
`invitation in column 4, lines 33–41, which state that VIM client 320
`“generate[s] a voice recording . . . upon accepting a VIM invitation,” i.e., a
`message “transmitted by the VIM client 310 of the first user to the VIM
`client 320 of the second user, wherein the message invites or prompts the
`VIM client 320 of the second user to generate a voice recording for the first
`user.” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1007, 4:33–41). Patent Owner interprets this
`passage to mean that Malik’s system “requires the recipient (or ‘first user’)
`to request a VIM from a particular sender (or ‘second user’).” Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`According to Patent Owner, the recipient in Malik “is granted sole control
`over when and from whom” a VIM is received and “[t]he sender may . . .
`only send the VIM where directed”—“without having the option” to select
`recipients. Id. at 24–25. Patent Owner asserts that it would not have been
`obvious to modify Malik as Petitioner proposes because, in contrast to
`Petitioner’s representations, Malik does not “disclose,” “contemplate,” or
`“even suggest” allowing the sender to select recipients and instead “teaches
`away from such a concept.” Id. at 25.
`To begin, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s
`contention that Väänänen teaches the recipient selection required by
`independent claims 1, 14, 28, 40, 51, and 62 and dependent claims 15 and 29
`of the ’890 patent. See id. at 23–26. At this stage of the proceeding, we
`agree with Petitioner’s showing that Väänänen teaches the requisite recipient
`selection based on its disclosures regarding a user at a subscriber terminal
`“select[ing]” or “choos[ing]” “at least one recipient” for an instant voice
`message, as well as several methods to do so including “simpl[y] press[ing]
`. . . a button” to designate the recipients in the terminal’s “contacts book.”
`Ex. 1008, 2:28–29, 6:5–11, Figs. 1–2; see Pet. 23–24, 27–28; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 262, 270. We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertions and
`Dr. Forys’s testimony that such selection of a message recipient was well
`known in the art. Pet. 23, 27; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 262, 270. Indeed, the ’890 patent
`acknowledges that having a user at a client terminal “select one or more
`persons to whom [a] message will be sent” was known. Ex. 1001, 2:31–33;
`see id. at 1:12, 2:23; Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d
`1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“A statement in a patent that something is in
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for determinations of
`. . . obviousness.”).
`Turning to Malik and Petitioner’s proposed incorporation of
`Väänänen’s teachings into Malik’s system, we are persuaded, on the present
`record, that Malik’s disclosures suggest a client’s user selecting message
`recipients

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket