UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`Patent 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 
`I. 
`II.  Requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................ 2 
`A. 
`Identification of challenge and statement of relief requested .................... 2 
`B.  Meaningful distinction between Vuori and Malik ..................................... 3 
`III.  The ’890 Patent .................................................................................................. 4 
`A.  Overview .................................................................................................... 4 
`B.  Claims ......................................................................................................... 5 
`1. 
`Independent Claims ............................................................................ 5 
`2.  Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 8 
`C.  Prosecution History .................................................................................... 8 
`IV.  Claim construction ............................................................................................. 9 
`A.  POSITA ...................................................................................................... 9 
`B.  “External Network” .................................................................................... 9 
`V.  State of the Art ................................................................................................. 12 
`A.  Storing-or-delivering an instant voice message based on recipient
`availability was well-known. .................................................................... 12 
`B.  Different types of networks were well-known. ........................................ 15 
`C.  Distributed server architecture was well-known ...................................... 16 
`D.  Packet-switched networks were well-known ........................................... 19 
`VI.  Ground 5: Malik and Väänänen Render Obvious Claims 1-3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 19,
`28, 29, 31, 33, 40, 42, 51, 53, 62, and 64. ........................................................ 19 
`A.  Overview of Malik ................................................................................... 19 
`B.  Overview of Väänänen ............................................................................. 21 
`C.  KSR for the Malik-Väänänen Combination ............................................. 23 
`1.  Recipient Selection ........................................................................... 23 
`2.  Transmitting Recipient Information ................................................. 24 
`3.  Same Field ........................................................................................ 25 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................. 25 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`4. 
`5. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`[1.P]: “An instant voice messaging system for delivering instant
`messages over a packet-switched network, the system
`comprising” ....................................................................................... 25 
`[1.1a]: “a client connected to the network” ...................................... 27 
`[1.1b]: “the client selecting one or more recipients” ........................ 27 
`a)  Malik ......................................................................................... 27 
`b)  Väänänen ................................................................................... 27 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 28 
`[1.1c]: “generating an instant voice message therefor” .................... 29 
`[1.1d]: “transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice
`message therefor over the network” ................................................. 29 
`a)  Malik ......................................................................................... 29 
`b)  Väänänen ................................................................................... 30 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 30 
`[1.2a]: “a server connected to the network” ..................................... 30 
`[1.2b]: “the server receiving the selected recipients and the
`instant voice message therefor” ........................................................ 31 
`[1.2c]: “delivering the instant voice message to the selected
`recipients over the network” ............................................................. 31 
`[1.2d]: “the selected recipients enabled to audibly play the instant
`voice message” ................................................................................. 32 
`10.  [1.2e]: “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.” ........................................................... 32 
`a)  Malik ......................................................................................... 32 
`b)  Väänänen ................................................................................... 33 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 33 
`E.  Dependent Claims 2, 3, and 5 ................................................................... 34 
`1.  Dependent Claim 2: local network ................................................... 34 
`a)  Malik ......................................................................................... 34 
`b)  Väänänen ................................................................................... 34 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 34 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`F. 
`
`d) 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`2.  Dependent Claim 3: Internet ............................................................. 35 
`3.  Dependent Claim 5: delivery to available recipient[s] ..................... 35 
`Independent Claim 14 ............................................................................... 35 
`1.  Additional limitations in claim 14 .................................................... 38 
`a) 
`[14.P]: a plurality of packet-switched networks ....................... 38 
`b) 
`[14.1a]: local network ............................................................... 38 
`c) 
`[14.1b]: external recipients connected to an external network . 38 
`(1)  KSR to incorporate FIG. 3’s Internet into FIG.
`2 of Malik. ...................................................................... 39 
`[14.1d]: transmission over the local network and the external
`network ..................................................................................... 40 
`[14.2a]: a server connected to the external network ................. 40 
`e) 
`[14.2c]: delivery over the external network .............................. 40 
`f) 
`G.  Dependent claims 15, 17, and 19 ............................................................. 41 
`1.  Dependent Claim 15: local server .................................................... 41 
`2.  Dependent Claim 17: Internet ........................................................... 43 
`3.  Dependent Claim 19: delivery to available recipient[s] ................... 43 
`Independent Claim 28 ............................................................................... 43 
`1.  Additional Limitations in Claim 28 .................................................. 46 
`a) 
`[28.P]: a plurality of packet-switched networks ....................... 46 
`b) 
`[28.1a]: external network .......................................................... 46 
`c) 
`[28.1b]: recipients connected to a local network ...................... 47 
`d) 
`[28.1d]: transmission over the external network ...................... 47 
`e) 
`[28.2a], [28.2b]: external server system ................................... 48 
`f) 
`[28.2c]: routing .......................................................................... 48 
`g) 
`[28.3a], [28.3b], [28.3e]: local server receiving and delivering
`the message ............................................................................... 49 
`(1)  KSR – Modify Malik Server Communications
`to Server Forwarding Voice Messages ........................... 49 
`2.  Dependent Claim 29: external recipients .......................................... 50 
`3.  Dependent Claim 31: Internet ........................................................... 52 
`
`H. 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`4.  Dependent Claim 33: delivery to available recipient[s] ................... 52 
`Independent Claim 40 ............................................................................... 53 
`1.  Dependent Claim 42: delivery to available recipient[s] ................... 54 
`Independent Claim 51 ............................................................................... 54 
`1.  Dependent Claim 53: delivery to available recipient[s] ................... 57 
`Independent Claim 62 ............................................................................... 57 
`1.  Dependent Claim 64: delivery to available recipient[s] ................... 58 
`VII. Ground 6: Malik, Väänänen, and Deshpande Render Obvious Claims 4, 18,
`32, 41, 52, and 63. ............................................................................................ 59 
`A.  Dependent claims 4, 18, 32, 41, 52, and 63: server providing a list of
`recipients for client selection. ................................................................... 59 
`1.  Dependent Claim 4 ........................................................................... 59 
`a)  Malik-Väänänen ........................................................................ 59 
`b)  Deshpande ................................................................................. 60 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 60 
`2.  Dependent Claim 18 ......................................................................... 62 
`3.  Dependent Claim 32 ......................................................................... 63 
`4.  Dependent Claim 41 ......................................................................... 64 
`5.  Dependent Claim 52 ......................................................................... 64 
`6.  Dependent Claim 63 ......................................................................... 64 
`Ground 7: Malik, Väänänen, and Abburi Render Obvious Claims 6, 20,
`VIII. 
`34, 43, 54, and 65. ............................................................................................ 64 
`A.  Dependent Claims 6, 20, 34, 43, 54, 65: audio file .................................. 64 
`1.  Claim 6 .............................................................................................. 64 
`a)  Malik-Väänänen ........................................................................ 64 
`b)  Abburi ....................................................................................... 65 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 66 
`2.  Claim 20 ............................................................................................ 66 
`3.  Claim 34 ............................................................................................ 67 
`4.  Claim 43 ............................................................................................ 67 
`5.  Claim 54 ............................................................................................ 67 
`
`K. 
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`6.  Claim 65 ............................................................................................ 68 
`IX.  Ground 8: Malik, Väänänen, Abburi, and Daniell Render Obvious Claim 68.
` .......................................................................................................................... 68 
`A.  Dependent Claim 68: file attachment ....................................................... 68 
`a)  Malik-Väänänen-Abburi ........................................................... 68 
`b)  Daniell ....................................................................................... 68 
`c)  KSR ............................................................................................ 69 
`X.  Mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ....................................................... 70 
`A.  Real parties-in-interest (§42.8(b)(1)) ....................................................... 70 
`B.  Notice of related matters (§42.8(b)(2)) .................................................... 70 
`C.  Lead and back-up counsel with service information (§42.8(b)(3) and
`(4)) ............................................................................................................ 74 
`XI.  Grounds for standing ........................................................................................ 74 
`XII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 75 
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002 
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Rojas, U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (filed December 18, 2003, issued
`May 19, 2009).  
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D.
`
`Vuori, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0146097 (filed
`July 23, 2001, published October 10, 2002).
`
`Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0023131
`(filed March 19, 2001, published February 21, 2002).
`
`Malik, U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 (filed August 19, 2002, issued
`October 17, 2006).
`
`Väänänen, WO Patent Publication No. 02/17658 (filed August 20,
`2001, published February 28, 2002).
`
`Deshpande, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0046273
`(filed August 28, 2001, published March 6, 2003).
`
`Daniell et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2004/0068545, (filed December 19, 2002, published April 8, 2004).
`
`Aoki et al., “The IMX Architecture Interoperability with America
`Online’s Instant Messaging Services,” June 15, 2000.
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. (2002).
`
`Excerpt from Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed.,
`New York: MacMillan, 1999.
`
`Staack et al., WO Patent Publication No. 02/07396 (filed July 13,
`2000, published January 24, 2002)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Abburi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0147512 (filed
`February 1, 2002, published August 7, 2003).
`
`Old Version of AOL Instant Messenger 2.1 Download, retrieved
`from http://www.oldapps.com/aim.php?old_aim=4#screenshots.
`
`Clarke et. al., Experiments with packet switching of voice traffic,
`IEE Proceedings G - Electronic Circuits and Systems, V.130, N.4 ,
`pp. 105-113 (August 1983).
`
`Sharma, VoP (voice over packet), IEEE Potentials, V. 21, N. 4,
`October/November 2002, pp. 14-17.
`
`Schuh et al., WO Patent Publication No. 2003/024027 (filed August
`21, 2002, published March 20, 2003).
`
`Lotito et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,625,081 (filed November 30, 1982,
`issued November 25, 1986).
`
`Pershan, U.S. Patent No. 5,260,986 (filed April 23, 1991, issued
`November 9, 1993).
`
`Hogan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,619,554 (filed June 8, 1994, issued
`April 8, 1997).
`
`International Telecommunication Union, General Aspects of Digital
`Transmission Systems, Terminal Equipments, Pulse Code
`Modulation (PCM) of Voice Frequencies, ITU-T Recommendation
`G.711., pp. 1-10 (ITU 1993).
`
`Oouchi et al., Study on Appropriate Voice Data Length of IP Packets
`for VoIP Network Adjustment, Proceedings of the IEEE Global
`Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) 2002, V. 2, Taipei,
`Taiwan, 2002, pp. 1618–1622.
`
`Locascio, U.S. Patent No. 6,603,757 (filed April 14, 1999, issued
`August 5, 2003).
`
`Peersman et al., The Global System for Mobile Communications
`Short Message Service, IEEE Personal Communications (June 2000).
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1027
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`DESCRIPTION
`
`SMPP v3.4 Protocol Implementation guide for GSM / UMTS (May
`30, 2002).
`
`1028
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2nd ed. (2002).
`
`
`This Exhibit list covers two inter partes review petitions being filed against
`
`the ’890 patent. Not all exhibits are used in each petition, but all are used in the
`
`single declaration that supports both petitions.
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (Ex. 1001, “’890 Patent.”) is directed to an instant
`
`voice messaging system for delivering instant messages (IM) over a packet-
`
`switched network. (’890 Patent, Abstract.) The inventor incorrectly perceived that
`
`“no instant messaging vendor is concentrating on voice” at the time. (Ex. 1002,
`
`’890 Patent File History, 96.) The alleged “innovation,” characterized by the
`
`inventor, is nothing more than “instant voice,” by combining well-known instant
`
`messaging features in a voice messaging system, as admitted during prosecution.
`
`(Id., 90, 96.)
`
`The Examiner erroneously issued the ’890 Patent alleging a patentable
`
`limitation that was a well-known IM technique and already applied in many voice-
`
`messaging systems:
`
`a server that temporarily stores an instant voice message if a recipient
`is unavailable and delivers the stored instant voice message when the
`recipient becomes available.
`(Id., 45.)
`
`For example, Malik teaches that a voice instant message (VIM) server
`
`temporarily stores the VIM for the unavailable recipient until the server delivers
`
`the VIM when the recipient later becomes available. (Ex. 1007, Malik, 3:20-21,
`
`5:21-27 3:20-21.)
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`In addition, all other limitations of the challenged claims were broadly
`
`applied and well known in the industry, and there was nothing novel about how
`
`those limitations were combined. Accordingly, the Petition should be granted and
`
`trial instituted on all the challenged claims as set forth below.
`
`II. Requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Identification of challenge and statement of relief requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review and cancellation of
`
`challenged claims based on eight grounds in two petitions as follows:
`
`Ground Statute
`1
`§ 103
`
`2
`
`3
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Petition 1 (Co-Filed Petition)
`Claims
`Prior Art
`Vuori1 and Väänänen2
`1-3, 5, 14, 15,
`17, 19, 28, 29,
`31, 33, 40, 42,
`51, 53, 62, 64
`Vuori, Väänänen, and
`4, 18, 32, 41,
`Deshpande3
`52, 63
`6, 20, 34, 43, Vuori, Väänänen, and Abburi4
`
`
`1 Vuori (Ex. 1005) published on October 10, 2002, and is prior art under §102(b).
`
`2 Väänänen (Ex. 1008) published on February 28, 2002, and is prior art under
`
`§102(b).
`
`3 Deshpande (Ex. 1009) filed on August 28, 2001, published March 6, 2003, and is
`
`prior art under §§102(a) and 102(e).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Petition 1 (Co-Filed Petition)
`Claims
`Prior Art
`54, 65
`68
`
`Vuori, Väänänen, Abburi, and
`Daniell5
`Petition 2 (This Petition)
`Claims
`Prior Art
`Malik6 and Väänänen
`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
`
`Malik, Väänänen, and
`Deshpande
`Malik, Väänänen, and Abburi
`
`Malik, Väänänen, Abburi, and
`Daniell
`
`
`
`Ground Statute
`
`4
`
`§ 103
`
`Ground Statute
`5
`§ 103
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`
`B. Meaningful distinction between Vuori and Malik
`
`The Vuori and Malik Grounds have meaningful distinctions. (Ex. 1003,
`
`Forys Dec. ¶¶102-05.)
`
`Vuori better teaches “[the client] selecting one or more [] recipients” in the
`
`challenged independent claims. Vuori explicitly discloses that the user “select[s]7
`
`
`4 Abburi (Ex. 1015) filed on February 1, 2002, published on August 7, 2003 , and
`
`is prior art under §§102(a) and 102(e).
`
`5 Daniell (Ex. 1010) filed December 19, 2002, and is prior art under §102(e).
`
`6 Malik (Ex. 1007) filed August 19, 2002, and is prior art under §102(e).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`one or more intended recipients.” (Ex. 1005, Vuori, [0033].) Malik discloses that
`
`
`
`its client “receives a request or prompt by” the sending user to send a message,
`
`without explicitly disclosing recipient selection. (Malik, 6:7-9.)
`
`Vuori also better teaches “[the client] transmitting the selected [] recipients”
`
`in the challenged independent claims. Vuori explicitly discloses its client transmits
`
`the “SVM along with the encoded information designating the intended
`
`recipient.” (Vuori, [0056].) Malik does not explicitly disclose its client
`
`transmitting the recipient information.
`
`On the other hand, Malik better teaches the “local server” in independent
`
`claims 28, 62, and dependent claim 15. Malik discloses that its server can be a
`
`local server. (Malik, 2:66-3:3:1, 4:45-47.) Vuori does not explicitly label any of its
`
`servers as a “local server.”
`
`The Board should institute both the Vuori and Malik Grounds.
`
`III. The ’890 Patent
`
`A. Overview
`
`The ’890 Patent is directed to “an instant voice messaging system” for
`
`“delivering instant messages over a packet-switched network.” (’890 Patent,
`
`Abstract.) The ’890 Patent’s system comprises a client, a server, and selected
`
`
`7 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`recipient[s] connected through a network. (Id., 2:49-60.) At the client, one or more
`
`
`
`recipients may be selected, and an instant voice message is generated. (Id.) The
`
`selected recipient[s] and the generated message are transmitted over the network to
`
`the server. (Id.) The server delivers the received message to the selected
`
`recipient[s] over the network. (Id.) The selected recipient[s] can audibly play
`
`message. (Id.)
`
`The ’890 Patent’s server provides “contact presence (connection)
`
`information and message scheduling and delivery” for the connected recipient[s].
`
`(Id., 14:60-63.) For example, when the server receives an instant voice message, if
`
`the recipient is not connected to the server (i.e., unavailable), the server
`
`temporarily saves the message and delivers the message when the recipient[s] is
`
`available. (Id., 8:22-29.)
`
`B. Claims
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claims
`
`The challenged claims include six sets of claims. Claims 1, 14, 28, 40, 51,
`
`and 62 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is representative8:
`
` An instant voice messaging system for delivering instant
`messages over a packet-switched network,
`the system
`comprising:
`
`8 Formatting added.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
` a client connected to the network, the client
`o selecting one or more recipients,
`o generating an instant voice message therefor, and
`o transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice
`message therefor over the network; and
` a server connected to the network, the server
`o receiving the selected recipients and the instant voice
`message therefor, and
`o 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
`o temporarily storing the instant voice message if a
`selected recipient is unavailable and
`o delivering the stored instant voice message to the
`selected recipient once the selected recipient becomes
`available.
`(’890 Patent, Claim 1.)
`
`The other independent claims recite substantially similar limitations. The
`
`differences among the independent claims mostly relate to various types of
`
`network(s) connecting the client, server(s), and recipient(s). Based on these
`
`differences, the six independent claims can be categorized into three groups. (Forys
`
`Dec., ¶56.)
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Group 1: independent claims 1 and 40 relate to a system/method for
`
`delivering an instant voice message over a packet-switched network. The
`
`“client,” “server,” and “recipient(s)” are all connected to this network. (Forys Dec.,
`
`¶57.)
`
`Group 2: independent claims 14 and 51 relate to a system/method for
`
`delivering an instant voice message over a plurality of packet-switched networks
`
`(including “local network” and “external network”).The “client” is connected to
`
`the “local network.” The “[external] server” and the “external recipient(s)” are
`
`connected to the “external network.” (Forys Dec., ¶58.)
`
`Group 3: independent claims 28 and 62 also relate to a system/method for
`
`delivering an instant voice message over a plurality of packet-switched networks
`
`(including “local network” and “external network”). However, the message flow of
`
`claims 28 and 62 is almost the reverse of claims 14 and 51. In claims 28 and 62,
`
`the “client” is connected to the “external network” while the “recipient(s)” are
`
`connected to the “local network.” Claims 28 and 62 further recite an “external
`
`server” connected to the “external network,” and a “local server” connected to the
`
`“local network.” In addition, the “external server” forwards the instant voice
`
`message to the “local server” for delivery because claims 28 and 62 recite that the
`
`“external server” routes and the “local server” receives the message. (Forys Dec.,
`
`¶59.)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`The challenged dependent claims recite additional well-known limitations.
`
`Claim 2 relates to a local network. Claims 3, 17, 31 relate to the Internet. Claims 5,
`
`19, 33, 42, 53, 64 relate to delivering the message to available recipient[s]. Claims
`
`4, 18, 32, 41, 52, 63 relate to the server providing a list of recipients for client
`
`selection. Claims 6, 20, 34, 43, 54, 65 relate to recording, transmitting, and
`
`delivering the message in the form of an audio file. (Forys Dec., ¶60.)
`
`In addition, claim 15 recites a local server receiving and delivering the
`
`message to local recipient[s]. Claim 29 recites “external recipient[s]” connected to
`
`the external network. Claim 68 relates to file attachment and storage.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The Examiner allowed the ’890 Patent because the applied references
`
`supposedly fail to teach or render obvious “a server that temporarily stores an
`
`instant voice message if a recipient is unavailable and delivers the stored instant
`
`voice message when the recipient becomes available.” (’890 File History, 45.) But
`
`a server storing-or-delivering an instant voice message based on recipient
`
`availability was widely known well before the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’890 Patent. (Forys Dec., ¶63.)
`
`Patentee did submit a §1.131 affidavit alleging a conception date before
`
`August 15, 2003. (’890 File History, 89-135.) Even if the affidavit meets §1.131
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`standards, which it does not, all the applied references in this Petition are still prior
`
`
`
`art.
`
`IV. Claim construction9
`
`A.
`
`POSITA
`
`Regarding the ’890 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`
`would have at least 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, messaging systems, data
`
`networks including VoIP, and mobile telephony, or comparable industry
`
`experience. (Forys Dec., ¶30.)
`
`B.
`
`“External Network”
`
`Independent claims 14, 28, 51, and 62 recite an “external network.” Under
`
`the BRI, the term “external network” means “a network that is outside another
`
`network.” (Forys Dec., ¶64.) One example would be the Internet, as found in
`
`dependent claims 17 and 31.
`
`
`9 Proposed constructions are for inter partes review only and Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to revisit constructions in litigation. Petitioner further reserves
`
`the right to challenge indefiniteness of all claim terms in litigation.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`The context of the claims supports this construction. The claims recite “an
`
`external network outside the local network.” (’890 Patent, Claims 14, 51.) The
`
`plain meaning of the word “external” further supports this construction. (Ex. 1013,
`
`Webster’s, 503 (defining “external” as “on or having to do with the outside; outer;
`
`exterior”).) (Forys Dec., ¶65.)
`
`The context of the claims also supports that the Internet is an example of the
`
`“external network,” reciting, “wherein the external network is the Internet.” (’890
`
`Patent, Claims 17, 31; Forys Dec., ¶66.)
`
`The specification does not provide an embodiment that specifically refers to
`
`the term “external network.” The specification only recites the claimed “external
`
`network” in Section “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION,” with the same level of
`
`details as the claims (e.g., reciting “an external network outside the local
`
`network”). (Ex. 1001, 3:24-4:26; Forys Dec., ¶67.)
`
`FIG. 5 of the ’890 Patent provides an exemplary “global instant voice
`
`messaging (IVM) system 500” that utilizes both local networks and/or the
`
`Internet.10 (Ex. 1001, 15:24-25; Forys Dec., ¶68.)
`
`
`10 However, this embodiment does not explicitly refer to the term, “external
`
`network.”
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`(’890 Patent, FIG. 5.)
`
`In FIG. 5, the “global IVM system 500 comprises the local IVM system 510,
`
`global IVM server system 502, and global IVM clients 506 and 508 that are
`
`optionally connected via local IP network 504.” (’890 Patent, 15:28-31.) The
`
`Internet and/or local networks allow local clients and global clients to
`
`communicate messages with each other: “global IVM server system 502 is
`
`connected to the IP network (i.e., Internet) 102 for enabling the local IVM clients
`
`206, 208…in the local IVM system 510 to generate and send instant voice
`
`messages to the global IVM clients 506, 508, as well as the local IVM clients 206,
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`208 to receive instant voice messages from the global IVM clients 506, 508.” (Id.,
`
`
`
`15:31-38; FIG. 5.)
`
`Accordingly, based on the claim context, the plain meaning, and the
`
`specification, the term “external network” means “a network that is outside another
`
`network.” (Forys Dec., ¶70.)
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`
`Prior to the alleged invention, all the technology at issue was broadly applied
`
`and well known in the field of messaging systems. (Forys Dec., ¶71.) No
`
`individual elements of the challenged claims were novel at the time, and there was
`
`nothing novel about how those elements were combined. (Id.) Further, there were
`