`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., SNAP INC., FACEBOOK, INC., and WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-002211
`Patent 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LEONARD J. FORYS, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1 Snap Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2017-01612, as well as Facebook, Inc. and
`WhatsApp, Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2017-01636, have been joined as
`petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`Apple Ex. 1029
`Apple v. Uniloc
`IPR2017-00221
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Response to Uniloc’s Patent Owner Response and Mr. Easttom’s
`Declaration ....................................................................................................... 4
`A. Malik and Väänänen disclose that the client is connected to a
`local network. ........................................................................................ 5
`B. Malik states that Jabber Servers can be connected to each other
`through the Internet. .............................................................................. 7
`C. Malik clearly contemplates that the improvements of FIG. 3 can
`be applied to the architecture of FIG. 2. ................................................ 8
`D. Use of a server system was well known. .............................................10
`E. Malik and Väänänen teach or suggest “routing.” ...............................13
`F.
`A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Malik to
`“select[] one or more recipients.” ........................................................13
`III. Conclusion .....................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`
`I, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This declaration supplements my declaration (Ex. 1003) submitted
`
`with Apple’s Petition in IPR2017-00221. I maintain my opinions in that
`
`declaration and rely on my qualifications and understanding of legal principles.
`
`(Ex. 1003, ¶¶1-52.) This declaration more specifically addresses positions in the
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., (“Uniloc” or “PO”) Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 13) (“POR”) and the declaration of William C. Easttom II (Ex.
`
`2001) submitted therewith.
`
`2.
`
`In view of PO’s arguments, it is still my opinion that all of the claim
`
`elements in the ’890 Patent are taught or suggested by Malik in view of Väänänen
`
`alone or in combination with the other prior art references presented in the
`
`Grounds of the Petition. In my opinion, PO’s arguments rely on overly-narrow
`
`interpretations of the claim elements, inaccurate explanations of the prior art
`
`references, and unfounded concerns about the combinations of prior art references
`
`that inflate potential “detriments” and ignore an artisan’s understanding of design
`
`tradeoffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`3.
`
`following documents:
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1005
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`Vuori, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0146097 (filed
`July 23, 2001, published October 10, 2002).
`
`1006 Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0023131
`(filed March 19, 2001, published February 21, 2002).
`
`1007 Malik, U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 (filed August 19, 2002, issued
`October 17, 2006).
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`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).
`Abburi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0147512 (filed
`February 1, 2002, published August 7, 2003).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`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).
`SMPP v3.4 Protocol Implementation guide for GSM / UMTS (May
`30, 2002).
`1028 Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2nd ed. (2002).
`1030
`Deposition Transcript of William C. Easttom, II
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`Declaration of Chuck Easttom.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Leonard Forys.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`
`Forys Deposition Errata.
`
`Description
`
`Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890.
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`
`Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review.
`
`Patent Owner Response.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, the above Exhibits are true and accurate
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2003
`
`
`
`Paper #
`
`2
`6
`
`10
`
`13
`
`
`
`4.
`
`copies of what they purport to be. An expert in the field would reasonably rely on
`
`them to formulate opinions such as those set forth in this declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I continue to be compensated for my work in this proceeding. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II. Response to Uniloc’s Patent Owner Response and Mr. Easttom’s
`Declaration
`
`6.
`
`I address certain portions of Uniloc’s Patent Owner Response and Mr.
`
`Easttom’s Declaration below. Failure to address any statement or argument
`
`presented by Uniloc or Mr. Easttom should not be viewed as an acquiescence to or
`
`agreement with that statement or argument.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`A. Malik and Väänänen disclose that the client is connected to a local
`network.
`
`7. Malik contemplates that its VIM server may be a local server: “The
`
`VIM server 330 may act as a single IM server 105 of FIG. 1 or a local IM server,
`
`such as a Jabber Server 215 of FIG. 2.” (Malik, 4:45-47, emphasis added.)
`
`8. Malik also contemplates that its VIM client may be connected to a
`
`local network. For example, Malik states that “[a]n example of a general purpose
`
`computer that can implement the VIM client 310, 320 or VIM server 330 (although
`
`not shown) of one preferred embodiment of the present invention is shown in FIG.
`
`6.” (Malik, 7:61-65.) Malik further states that “the I/O devices 606 [of computer
`
`600 of FIG. 6] may further include devices that communicate both inputs and
`
`outputs, for instance but not limited to, a modulator/demodulator (modem; for
`
`accessing another device, system, or network), a radio frequency (RF) or other
`
`transceiver, a telephonic interface, a bridge, a router, etc.” (Malik, 8:53-63,
`
`emphasis added.) A POSITA would understand that the VIM client can use a
`
`bridge or a router to connect to a local network.
`
`9.
`
`To the extent that Malik does not explicitly state that the local VIM
`
`server and its VIM clients are connected through a local network, such connection
`
`was well-known in the art, for example, as explicitly taught in Väänänen.
`
`10. For example, Väänänen discloses that an instant voice message server
`
`and its clients can communicate through a LAN (local area network): “The
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`communications connections used between the terminals and the servers … are
`
`typically compliant with … LAN.” (Väänänen, 16:19-23, emphasis added.) When
`
`the server and its clients are dispersed over a relatively limited area such as within
`
`a school or a company with one building, a POSITA would have found it obvious
`
`to connect Malik’s VIM clients to its local VIM server over a LAN because LAN
`
`was a well-known technique to connect devices dispersed over a relatively limited
`
`area. (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 304.) Incorporating Väänänen’s LAN into
`
`Malik amounts to nothing more than combining prior art elements (Malik’s local
`
`VIM server communicating with its VIM clients, and Väänänen’s clients and
`
`server communicating over a LAN) according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results (local VIM server and its VIM clients communicating over a
`
`LAN).
`
`11.
`
`In addition, Väänänen has embodiments that use personal digital
`
`assistants (PDAs): “The subscriber terminal used in the method may also be a PC,
`
`PDA, Palm Computer or an Apple Macintosh computer equipped with an Internet
`
`connection and/or a
`
`telephony network com1ection
`
`in some preferable
`
`embodiments.” (Väänänen, 15:27-29, emphasis added). A POSITA would
`
`understand that PDAs connect to the Internet using local area networks, for
`
`example, Wi-Fi networks.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`12. So, a POSITA would have found it obvious to connect Malik’s VIM
`
`clients and its local VIM server to a local network (such as a LAN) such that the
`
`local VIM server and its VIM clients communicate through the local network.
`
`B. Malik states that Jabber Servers can be connected to each other
`through the Internet.
`13. PO states that “Petitioner’s fundamental rewrite of Malik (using the
`
`claim language as a blueprint) ignores the definitive statement in Malik that Jabber
`
`Clients 200–205 are connected via the Internet to Jabber Servers 215–217.” (POR,
`
`22-23, emphasis in original.) PO’s interpretation of Malik is incorrect.
`
`14. Malik states that “[b]ecause Jabber is based on the email system, the
`
`Jabber architecture contains distributed network servers, called Jabber servers 215–
`
`217 and clients, known as Jabber clients 200–205 that receive and send messages
`
`to Jabber clients 200–205 connected to other Jabber server 215–217 on the
`
`Internet.” (Malik, 2:53-58.) Malik also states that “[e]ach local Jabber server 215–
`
`217 functions independently from one another, and can communicate with any
`
`other Jabber server 215–217 that is connected to the Internet as long as it has been
`
`identified, and predisposed to do so ahead of time.” (Malik, 3:5-9.)
`
`15. Malik does not state that a Jabber Client is connected via the Internet
`
`to its respective Jabber Server. Malik states that Jabber Servers 215-217 can be
`
`connected to each other through the internet - not that a client is connected to its
`
`server through the internet.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`C. Malik clearly contemplates that the improvements of FIG. 3 can
`be applied to the architecture of FIG. 2.
`
`16. Malik states that “VIM server 330 includes the capabilities of
`
`conventional IM servers and the additional capabilities for handling VIM message
`
`deliver and storage.” (Malik, 4:51-53.) For example, when discussing contact
`
`parameters, Malik states that “[i]n an open system (FIG. 2), however, the contact
`
`parameters are stored in a storage medium (not shown) accessible by the VIM
`
`server 330, such as an internal disk drive or a separate storage medium, Such as a
`
`database.” (Malik, 5:6-10, emphasis added.) Malik is not replacing the prior art
`
`architecture of FIG. 2 with FIG. 3. Malik is adding new features of FIG. 3 to the
`
`prior art architecture of FIG. 2.
`
`17. Mr. Easttom states that “[g]iven the dual IM and VIM functionality of
`
`the VIM server 330, the most plausible interpretation, in light of the disclosure,
`
`is that the VIM server 330 ‘acts’ as a legacy Jabber Server 215 by continuing to
`
`enable the ‘prior art’ IM functionality described with reference to Figure 2. (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶ 38, emphasis added.) I disagree with Mr. Easttom’s statement. First,
`
`assuming that Mr. Easttom’s statement is correct, his interpretation is one of many
`
`interpretations of Malik’s FIGs. 2 and 3 - not the only one. Plausible does not
`
`mean only. Second, it is the functionality of VIM server 330 that is the subject of
`
`one of the improvements of the embodiment of FIG. 3 not the connection of VIM
`
`clients 310 and 320 to VIM server.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`18. Malik states that “VIM server 330 may act as a single IM server 105
`
`of FIG. 1 or a local IM server, such as a Jabber Server 215 of FIG. 2.” (Malik,
`
`4:45-47.) Malik states that the functionality of VIM server 330 can be added to IM
`
`server 105 of FIG. 1 or a local IM server, such as a Jabber Server 215 of FIG. 2. Or
`
`in other words, VIM server 330 can replace IM server 105 of FIG. 1 or replace a
`
`local IM server, such as a Jabber Server of FIG. 2.
`
`19. The fact that IVM 300 can act as a Jabber Server of FIG. 2 shows that
`
`IVM 300 can be interconnected to clients and other servers similar to servers of
`
`FIG. 2.
`
`20. Malik does not disparage using the servers as arranged in FIG. 2. In
`
`contrast, Malik explicitly states that the “VIM server 330 may act as …a local IM
`
`server, such as a Jabber Server 215 of FIG. 2” (Malik, 4:45-47) and states that
`
`“VIM server 330 includes the capabilities of conventional IM servers and the
`
`additional capabilities for handling VIM message deliver and storage.” (Malik,
`
`4:51-53.) Considering Malik as a whole for what it teaches Malik does the opposite
`
`of disparagement – rather suggesting the combination of FIGs. 2 and 3 of Malik.
`
`21. Malik discloses that “the voice message delivery system can be
`
`incorporated over many instant messaging configurations, such as peer-to-peer,
`
`with the VIM server 330 providing primarily passive directory services, and
`
`clients-to-clients, with a single VIM server 330 providing directory services as
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`well as message queuing and delivery.” (Malik, 5:14-20, emphasis added.) In this
`
`example, Malik states that voice message delivery system can be incorporated over
`
`client-to-client instant messaging configuration using a single VIM server 330.
`
`Malik states that the closed IM architecture of FIG. 1 can be client-to-client IM.
`
`(Malik, 2:28-31.) But the “Jabber architecture is based on client-server architecture
`
`and not on a client-to-client architecture, as are most IM systems.” (Malik, 2:64-
`
`66.) Therefore, the example of single VIM server is not for the Jabber architecture
`
`of FIG. 2.
`
`D. Use of a server system was well known.
`22. PO asserts that “the Petition does not address the recited distinction
`
`between the ‘external server system’ and the ‘local server.’” (POR, 25, emphasis in
`
`original.) Yet, nowhere does the PO (or its expert) define what a “server system”
`
`is. Rather PO imports limitations from the Specification to the claims. A POSITA
`
`would understand that a server system can include a server with multiple
`
`components performing multiple functions. Malik discloses that its servers can
`
`include multiple components performing multiple functions. Malik states that
`
`“[e]ach local Jabber server 215-217 consists of multiple components that
`
`separately handle individual functions with the Jabber system.” (Malik, 3:13-15,
`
`emphasis added.) Also, “[a]ccordingly, the VIM server 330 includes the
`
`capabilities of conventional IM servers and the additional capabilities for handling
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`VIM message delivery and storage.” (Malik 4:51-54.) A POSITA would
`
`understand that to do both VIM message delivery functionality (capabilities) and
`
`message storage functionality (capabilities) would typically require multiple
`
`components, i.e., a system. Therefore, a POSITA thus would have found it obvious
`
`to use a server with multiple components (a server system) as Jabber server 215-
`
`217 or VIM server 330.
`
`23. So, Malik discloses using a server system.2
`
`24. Additionally, as discussed in my first declaration (Ex. 1003),
`
`distributed server architecture was well-known. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-85.) Although I
`
`discussed the distributed server architecture with respect to external and local
`
`servers, a system of servers was well-known. For example, Jabber servers 216-217
`
`are depicted as being external to local network serving clients 200-201 served by
`
`Jabber server 215, particularly as servers 215-217 are interconnected by the
`
`Internet (Malik, 3:5-9.) Likewise, VIM server 330 can connect to other VIM
`
`servers via the Internet (Malik 4:42-44.) “Each local Jabber server 215–217
`
`2 Deshpande (Ex. 1009) also discloses that “Although instant-messaging
`
`server 160 is shown to contain only a single processor and a single bus, the present
`
`invention applies equally to servers that may have multiple processors and to
`
`servers that may have multiple buses with some or all performing different
`
`functions in different ways.” (Ex. 1009, ¶ [0021], emphasis added.)
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`performs two functions: listening for and communicating directly with Jabber
`
`client applications 200–205, and communicating with other Jabber servers
`
`215–217.” (Malik, 3:9-12, emphasis added.)
`
`25. As another example, Väänänen discloses a Store and Forward Server
`
`Network (SFSN), which “is typically a network of servers linked together
`
`through the Internet, telephony network, a Virtual Private Network (VPN), or some
`
`other communications or signaling network. The connections in the SFSN may be
`
`TCPIIP-, IP-, UDP-, HTTP-, H323-, and/or FTP- in some embodiments.” (Id.,
`
`9:14-18, emphasis added.) To achieve scalability, one server can relay a message
`
`to another server for further delivery: “both the recipient contact information and
`
`the message are passed onto the SFSN. In some embodiments where several
`
`recipients or at least one group exists, the message may be relayed to some
`
`recipients by the original server and to some by the SFSN.” (Id., 9:10-14, emphasis
`
`added.)
`
`26. Väänänen also discloses that the choice of a server that contact a
`
`recipient is determined by delivery criteria set in the network: “the SFSN servers
`
`relay the message to the recipients through the Internet or the Telephony network.
`
`The call to the recipient is sometimes made from an optimal server in the SFSN.
`
`This may be the closest server or the one with the most inexpensive
`
`communications connection to the recipient. The choice of the server making
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`contact with a particular recipient is determined by delivery criteria set in the
`
`network.” (Väänänen, 13:1-6.) Väänänen also discloses that “[w]hen the same
`
`message is delivered to various recipients in different locations, copies of the same
`
`message may be routed to several different servers, from which the call is made.”
`
`(Id., 13:6-9.)
`
`27. So, Malik and Väänänen contemplate using a server system.
`
`E. Malik and Väänänen teach or suggest “routing.”
`28. PO argues that “[f]or the ‘routing’ limitations, the Petition argues that
`
`‘[t]he VIM server [in Malik] needs the recipient information for routing purpose
`
`[sic] (i.e., determine where to forward the message).’ Pet. 48. Malik discloses just
`
`the opposite.” (POR, 25, referring to §§V.C.1, V.D of POR.) PO is relying on one
`
`embodiment of Malik without considering other embodiments of Malik. (POR, 35-
`
`36.) As discussed in my first declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶324), the Malik-Väänänen
`
`combination discloses the “routing” feature.
`
`F. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Malik to
`“select[] one or more recipients.”
`
`29. As illustrated in FIG. 4 of Malik, “a first user designates in voice
`
`contact parameters that the first user will accept voice messages from a second
`
`user.” (Malik, 5:56-58.) For example, “a first user may specify in his or her contact
`
`list the persons that the first user would like to provide voice instant messaging
`
`capability to.” (Id., 5:59-63.) “At a later time, when an authorized user attempts to
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`send an instant message to the first user and the: [sic] 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., 5:66-6:4, emphasis added.)
`
`Alternatively, “the authorized user may generate a voice instant message regardless
`
`of the presence and/or availability state of the first user.” (Id., 6:4-6.)
`
`30. Therefore, Malik states that the first user authorizes a second user to
`
`send VIM to the first user. Later, when the second user wants to send the VIM to
`
`the first user, the second user can do so if the second user is authorized.
`
`31. Malik teaches that the first user authorizes the persons (e.g., the
`
`second user) for sending VIM. When it is an appropriate time to send an instant
`
`message to the first user, “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.”
`
`(Malik, 6:7-9, emphasis added.)
`
`32. FIG. 4 of Malik, which “shows the functionality of a representative
`
`embodiment of the voice message delivery system” (Malik, 5:43-45), illustrates
`
`that a first user authorizes a second user to be able to send a VIM to the first user.
`
`(Malik, FIG. 4, element 410.) The VIM client of the second user receives request
`
`from the second user to send an instant message to the first user who is not
`
`present. (Malik, FIG. 4, element 420.) The VIM client of the second user detects
`
`that the first user is not present or available and the VIM client of the second user
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`checks to see if it is capable of generating a voice recording. (Malik, FIG. 4,
`
`elements 425 and 430.) If VIM client of the second user is capable of generating a
`
`voice recording and the second user is authorized to leave a voice message for the
`
`first user, the VIM client of the second user invites the second user to send a VIM
`
`to the first user. (Malik, FIG. 4, elements 435, 440,445, and 450.)
`
`33.
`
`In summary, the VIM client of the second user receives a request from
`
`the second user to send an instant message to the firs user. But, if the first user is
`
`not present and available, the VIM client of the second user is capable of
`
`generating voice recording, and the second user is authorized, then the VIM client
`
`of the second user invites the second user to send a VIM to the first user. In other
`
`words, the process of sending the VIM starts with the VIM client of the second
`
`user receiving a request from the second user. It is of no importance the first
`
`request is for a text message or for an instant voice message.
`
`34. Malik also discloses selecting one or more recipients in the context of
`
`instant messaging. “The presence status is displayed to the user. At this point the
`
`user may select any IM client 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145 that is registered
`
`‘Online,’ at which point a dialog box will appear in which the user may enter text.”
`
`(Malik, 2:24-28.) As Malik points out, the VIM server includes the capabilities of
`
`conventional IM servers, so it would presumably have this selection capability as
`
`well - “Accordingly the VIM server 330 includes the capabilities of conventional
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`IM servers and the additional capabilities for handling VIM message delivery and
`
`storage.” (Malik 4:51-53.) In addition, Malik discloses that the “contact list”
`
`described in connection with instant messaging is also used by the VIM server via
`
`“contact parameters” which can serve as “directory services” to its clients. For
`
`example, Malik discloses that “The VIM server 330 then forwards a copy of the
`
`contact parameters to the VIM client 310. Typically, the VIM client 310 knows
`
`from the contact parameters the names of the people that the first user wants to
`
`receive presence status information about. Accordingly, the voice message delivery
`
`system can be incorporated over many instant messaging configurations, such as
`
`peer-to-peer, with the VIM server 330 providing primarily passive directory
`
`services, and clients-to-clients, with a single VIM server 330 providing directory
`
`services as well as message queuing and delivery.” (Malik 5:10-20, emphasis
`
`added.)
`
`35. Therefore, Malik discloses that the VIM client of the second user
`
`receives a request from the second user to send an instant message to the firs user.
`
`Malik allows the generating/transmitting client to select one or more recipients for
`
`an instant voice message. Malik does not explain in detail how the second user
`
`(sender) could input information to VIM client 320 to designate the first user
`
`(receiver), who uses VIM client 310. (Malik, FIG. 3, block 310.) So, a POSITA
`
`would be motivated to seek out ways in which a user could input information
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`designating a recipient when sending a voice message, e.g., using the well-known
`
`teachings in Väänänen.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890
`
`III. Conclusion
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`36.
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`37.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Executed this 18th day of December, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D.
`
`- 18 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
