UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00532
`Patent 5,894,506
`
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.
`III. PROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................ 3 
`A.
`Rules Governing Claim Construction – The Phillips Standard
`Governs. ................................................................................................ 3 
`1. When construing claim terms look to claims themselves
`and then the specification. ........................................................... 4 
`Limitations from the specification can be read into the
`claims. ......................................................................................... 4 
`3.
`Extrinsic evidence can be relied upon. ....................................... 4 
`Background on the Technology and the ’506 Patent ............................ 5 
`1.
`Person of ordinary skill in the art would have the
`following qualifications. ............................................................. 5 
`The ’506 Patent is directed to sending and receiving
`messages in an electronic messaging network. ........................... 5 
`Construction of Independent Claim Terms ......................................... 11 
`1.
`Limitation [1.4] is construed as “sending the message
`code assigned to the selected canned message from the
`first terminal to the network operation center.” ........................ 11 
`Limitation [1.5] is construed as “on the network
`operation center retrieving the selected canned message
`from the first file using the message code received from
`the first terminal.” ..................................................................... 12 
`The term “text form” of limitation [1.6] means “the
`canned message retrieved on the network operation
`center in limitation [1.5]” and the term “message code
`form” of limitation [1.6] means “the message code
`received from the first terminal in limitation [1.5].” ................ 13 
`Limitation [1.6] is construed as “on the network
`operation center determining whether the second
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`

`

`5.
`
`terminal can receive the canned message as the canned
`message retrieved by the network operation center or as
`the message code received from the first terminal.” ................. 14 
`The combination of limitations [1.4], [1.5], and [1.6]
`provides that the message code is sent from the first
`terminal to the network operation center, the network
`operation center retrieves the selected canned message
`using the message code, and the network operation center
`determines the form in which the second terminal can
`receive the canned message. ..................................................... 15 
`IV. REFERENCES RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER .................................... 17 
`A.
`LaPorta ................................................................................................ 17 
`B.
`Ise ........................................................................................................ 20 
`C.
`Tett ....................................................................................................... 22 
`D. Will ...................................................................................................... 24 
`RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS .......................... 30 
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1 – CLAIMS 1-7 AND 15-17 ARE NOT ARE NOT
`OBVIOUS OVER LAPORTA IN VIEW OF ISE AND TETT. ..................... 32 
`A. A patent claim is obvious only if all of its limitations are taught
`or suggested by prior art and combined in a manner that
`contains articulated reasoning and a rational underpinning. ............... 32 
`LaPorta in view of Ise and Tett does not disclose the
`combination of limitations [1.4], [1.5], and [1.6] of claim 1 and
`does not disclose the combination of limitations [15.2], [15.3],
`and [15.4] of claim 15. ........................................................................ 32 
`1.
`LaPorta in view of Ise and Tett does not disclose
`limitation [1.6] of claim 1 and does not disclose
`limitation [15.4] of claim 15. .................................................... 35 
`i.
`(1) LaPorta’s discussion of message formats is
`related to the protocol used to deliver the full text
`message to a particular type of device and not to
`whether or not the device can receive full text
`canned messages or message codes, and (2)
`LaPorta only teaches sending a full text
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`predetermined message to a receiving device, so it
`would not make sense for LaPorta to determine if
`a receiving device can also receive a message
`code. ................................................................................ 35 
`(1) because Ise always sends a message from the
`messaging server in message code form, Ise cannot
`teach or suggest limitation [1.6], (2) because Ise
`explicitly teaches away from any conversion of a
`message code to a message as described by
`LaPorta, Ise cannot be combined with LaPorta,
`and (3) Petitioner’s five reasons for combining
`LaPorta and Ise are simply conclusory statements
`that lack rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness. ............................................. 42 
`(1) the translated message of Tett is not equivalent
`to the message code of the ‘506 Patent, (2) because
`the translated form of the message in Tett is not
`sent to the messaging server, it cannot be the
`message code form of limitation [1.6], (3) because
`Tett and Laporta send the opposite information to
`their messaging server, Tett and Laporta cannot be
`combined without destroying the function of one
`of them, and (4) Petitioner’s four reasons for
`combining LaPorta and Ise are simply conclusory
`statements that lack rational underpinning to
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness .................. 50 
`LaPorta is not prior art. ....................................................................... 57 
`LaPorta, Ise, and Tett do not render claims 1-7 and 15-17
`obvious. ............................................................................................... 60 
`VII. GROUND 2 – CLAIM 18 IS NOT OBVIOUS OVER LAPORTA IN
`VIEW OF ISE, TETT, AND WILL. ............................................................... 61 
`A.
`LaPorta, Ise, Tett and Will do not render independent claim 15
`obvious, because Will does not cure LaPorta, Ise, and Tett’s
`defect in not teaching or suggesting limitation [15.4]. ....................... 61 
`LaPorta in view of Ise and Tett, and further in view of Will do
`not render dependent claim 18 obvious. ............................................. 63 
`
`C.
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`LaPorta is not prior art. ....................................................................... 64 
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64 
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES 
`Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC, IPR2014-00085, Paper 9
`(PTAB Apr. 25, 2014) ........................................................................................ 31
`Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) ................ 3
`Ex Parte Seyyedy, No. 2009-1696 (BPAI May 4, 2009) ......................................... 30
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................... 30
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................. 4
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................... 30
`In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................ 30
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) ........................................ 31
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................3, 4
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........... 5
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ... 30, 31
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., IPR2014-00257, Paper
`No. 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) ............................................................................ 30
`Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................. 4
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`35 United States Code § 103 ............................................................................... 1, 30
`37 Code of Federal Regulations § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................... 31
`37 Code of Federal Regulations § 42.104(b)(5) ...................................................... 31
`37 Code of Federal Regulations § 42.22(a) ............................................................. 31
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.01 ................................................... 4
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143.01(V) ........................................... 30
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2558 ........................................................ 3
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 715.07 ................................................... 57
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT LIST
`2001. April 2014 Deposition of Mr. Gregory Pinter
`in Mobile
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Civil
`Action No. 2:12-cv-832-JRG-RSP, U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of
`Texas.
`2002.
`Sheth Memo dated February 17, 1995.
`2003. Huller Memo dated February 23, 1995.
`2004.
`1995 Functional Requirements dated March 13, 1995.
`2005.
`The WSJ article dated September 19, 1995.
`2006. USA Today article dated September 19, 1995.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On December 28, 2016, Google Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, requesting inter partes review of claims 1-7 and 15-18
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,894,506 (“the ‘506 Patent”). Petitioner asserts that claims 1-7
`
`and 15-18 of the ‘506 Patent are unpatentable over the following references under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Ground 1 – Claims 1-7 and 15-17 as obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,970,122 (Exhibit 1004, “LaPorta”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,257,307
`
`(Exhibit 1005, “Ise”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,635,918 (Exhibit 1006, “Tett”);
`
`and
`
`Ground 2 – Claim 18 as obvious over LaPorta in view of Ise, Tett, and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,588,009 (Exhibit 1007, “Will”).
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, submits this
`
`Preliminary Response (“Preliminary Response”) to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1-7 and 15-18 of the ‘506 Patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny the Petition on every
`
`ground alleged by Petitioner for, at least, the following reasons.
`
`In regard to Ground 1, LaPorta, Ise, and Tett, individually or in
`
`combination, do not teach or suggest sending a message code to the network
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`operation center from a sending terminal, retrieving a canned message using the
`
`sent message code, and determining if a receiving terminal can receive the canned
`
`message in text form or message code form as recited in independent claims 1 and
`
`15. These limitations correspond to limitations [1.4], [1.5], and [1.6] of claim 1
`
`and limitations [15.2], [15.3], and [15.4] of claim 15.
`
`Also, LaPorta, Ise, and Tett cannot be combined. Ise cannot be combined
`
`with LaPorta or Tett, because Ise explicitly teaches away from any conversion of a
`
`message code to a message (LaPorta) or a message to a message code (Tett) on its
`
`intermediary pager base station. Tett cannot be combined with LaPorta or Ise,
`
`because Tett sends the opposite information to its messaging server (the message
`
`rather than the message code) and, therefore, the combination with either reference
`
`would destroy the function of Tett.
`
`Further, LaPorta is not prior art.
`
`In regard to Ground 2, Will also does not teach or suggest sending a message
`
`code to the network operation center from a sending terminal, retrieving a canned
`
`message using the sent message code, and determining if a receiving terminal can
`
`receive the canned message in text form or message code form as recited in
`
`independent claim 15. As a result, LaPorta, Ise, Tett, and Will individually or in
`
`combination do not render independent claim 15 obvious. At least because
`
`LaPorta, Ise, Tett, and Will do not render independent claim 15 obvious, dependent
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`claim 18 is also nonobvious in view of these references and for the additional
`
`limitations it recites.
`
`Therefore, there is no reasonable likelihood that Petitioner can prevail with
`
`regard to claims 1-7 and 15-18 of the ‘506 Patent.
`
`III. PROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Rules Governing Claim Construction – The Phillips Standard
`Governs.
`
`The ’506 Patent expired on September 5, 2016, so the proper claim
`
`construction is that used in district court review. The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (BRI) standard does not apply. In regard to the proper claim
`
`construction used in district court review, MPEP 2258 provides that “[i]n a
`
`reexamination proceeding
`
`involving claims of an expired patent, claim
`
`construction pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a
`
`claim “are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning” as understood by a
`
`PHOSITA at the time of the invention) should be applied since the expired claims
`
`are not subject to amendment. See Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd.
`
`Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`1. When construing claim
`look
`terms
`themselves and then the specification.
`The first step in construing claims under Phillips is to “look to the words of
`
`to claims
`
`the claims themselves.” Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). Second, the specification must be considered when construing
`
`claim terms. Id. “[T]he specification is always highly relevant.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Limitations from the specification can be read into
`the claims.
`Claim construction under Phillips varies from the BRI standard in at least
`
`two important ways. Claim construction under Phillips may read limitations in the
`
`specification into the claims. For example, “[t]he presumption that a term is given
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting
`
`forth a different definition of the term in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
`
`1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the USPTO looks to the
`
`ordinary use of the claim terms taking into account definitions or other
`
`“enlightenment” contained in the written description). MPEP 2111.01.
`
`3.
`Extrinsic evidence can be relied upon.
`Under Phillips, “it is entirely appropriate, perhaps even preferable, for a
`
`court to consult trustworthy extrinsic evidence to ensure that the claim construction
`
`it is tending to from the patent file is not inconsistent with clearly expressed,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`plainly apposite, and widely held understandings from the pertinent technical
`
`field.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. HP Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`B.
`
`Background on the Technology and the ’506 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art would have the
`following qualifications.
`Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention (PHOSITA) of the ’506 Patent would possess a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent and about four
`
`years working in the telecommunications industry, computer industry, or the
`
`equivalent.
`
`2.
`
`The ’506 Patent is directed to sending and receiving
`messages in an electronic messaging network.
`The ’506 Patent is directed to the field of telecommunications and to
`
`systems and methods for sending and receiving messages in an electronic
`
`messaging network. For example, independent claim 1 recites a system for
`
`communicating a canned message from a first subscriber to a second subscriber
`
`through a network operation center. Independent claim 15 recites a network
`
`operation center system for transmitting a canned message.
`
`Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`[1.1] maintaining at a network operation center, a first file of canned
`
`messages and message codes respectively assigned to the canned
`
`messages;
`
`[1.2] maintaining at a first terminal of a first subscriber a second file of
`
`canned messages corresponding to the first file;
`
`[1.3] selecting an appropriate canned message from the second file for
`
`transmission to a second terminal of a designated second subscriber;
`
`[1.4] sending the message code assigned to the selected canned message
`
`to the network operation center;
`
`[1.5] retrieving the selected canned message from the first file using the
`
`message code received from the first terminal;
`
`[1.6] determining whether the second terminal can receive the canned
`
`message in a text form or message code form; and
`
`[1.7] communicating the selected canned message to the second terminal
`
`in either message code form or text code form in response to the
`
`determination.
`
`Claim 15 recites the limitations of:
`
`[15.1] a memory storing a file of canned messages in text form, each
`
`canned message having a unique, abbreviated message code assigned
`
`thereto;
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`[15.2] a receiver for receiving a message code from a calling terminal
`
`included in the network;
`
`[15.3] means responsive to the received message code for retrieving from
`
`the memory the canned message assigned thereto;
`
`[15.4] means for determining whether a receiving terminal in the network
`
`can receive the canned message in text form or message code form; and
`
`[15.5] a transmitter for transmitting the retrieved canned message in text
`
`form or message code form in response to the determining means.
`
`Claim 1 essentially recites in limitations [1.4], [1.5], and [1.6] sending a
`
`message code to the network operation center from a sending terminal, retrieving a
`
`canned message using the sent message code, and determining if a receiving
`
`terminal can receive the canned message in text form or message code form,
`
`respectively. Claim 15 includes equivalent limitations [15.2], [15.3], and [15.4].
`
`The ’506 Patent defines a “message code” as “one or several ASCII
`
`characters. Ex. 1001 at 1:48-49. It defines a “canned message” as a “commonly
`
`used phrase that can be replaced by a message code.” Id. at 1:46-48.
`
`The ’506 Patent describes that the exemplary canned message “Can we sign
`
`the document first thing tomorrow?” can be replaced by the message code “62.”
`
`Id. 4:57-5:12. According to claims 1 and 15, the message code “62” is sent to or
`
`received by the network operation center (NOC). At the NOC, the canned message
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`“Can we sign the document first thing tomorrow?” is retrieved using the message
`
`code “62.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:57-5:12. (emphasis added).
`
`By replacing commonly used phrases (canned messages) with message
`
`codes, the ’506 Patent is able to provide a “degree of message compression” that
`
`allows the “communications link capacity” to be conserved, which is the principle
`
`object of the ’506 Patent. In other words, using canned messages and message
`
`codes conserves the bandwidth of the electronic messaging network.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`At the time of the ’506 Patent, not all receiving terminals were capable of
`
`understanding or decoding the message codes of canned messages. As a result, the
`
`network operation center (NOC) of the electronic messaging network had to
`
`determine if the receiving terminal was capable of receiving message codes and
`
`decoding the canned message.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:54-56. (emphasis added).
`
`This determination step of the ’506 Patent is shown graphically in step 56 of
`
`FIG. 3 of the ’506 Patent, which is shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`RECEIVE MESSAGE
`CODES AND PARAMETER(S)
`
`50
`
`IDENTIFY
`TERMINA S 1
`
`“I4
`
`FROM TERMINAL 10 54
`
`
`
`STORE
`TERMINAL
`
`[DENTITIES
`
`
`
`RETRIEVE CANNED
`
`MESSAGE & RESPONSE
`OPTIONS TEXT
`
`60
`
`TRANSMIT
`MESSAGE (CODE
`OR TEXT) T0
`TERMINAL 14
`
`58
`
`(FIG 4)
`
`FIG. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Based 05 this determination.—
`
`— -
`
`If the designated receiving terminal can accept
`
`10
`
`canned messagdresponse option codes. they are transmitted
`to the designated receiving party terminal in the same form
`15 as received from the sending party terminal (step 58). If the
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:7-15. (emphasis added).
`Ex. 1001 at 6:7-15. (emphasis added).
`
`10
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`A PHOSITA would understand that the determining step of independent
`
`claims 1 and 15 of the ’506 Patent is a decision step. The decision made in this
`
`step is whether a receiving terminal can receive the canned message in the text
`
`form “Can we sign the document first thing tomorrow?” or the message code form
`
`“62.”
`
`C. Construction of Independent Claim Terms
`
`The elements of independent claim 1 of the ’506 Patent should be given their
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” as understood by a PHOSITA at the time of the
`
`invention under the Phillips standard.
`
`1.
`
`Limitation [1.4] is construed as “sending the message
`code assigned to the selected canned message from the
`first terminal to the network operation center.”
`
`Limitation [1.4] of claim 1 recites a “sending the message code assigned to
`
`the selected canned message to the network operation center.” Patent Owner
`
`construes this term to mean “sending the message code assigned to the selected
`
`canned message from the first terminal to the network operation center.”
`
`This limitation does not describe where the message code is sent from.
`
`However, the following limitation, limitation [1.5], describes “using the message
`
`code received from the first terminal.” The antecedent basis of this message code
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`is the message code of limitation [1.4]. As a result, the message code sent in
`
`limitation [1.4] must be sent from the first terminal.
`
`2.
`
`Limitation [1.5] is construed as “on the network
`operation center retrieving
`the selected canned
`message from the first file using the message code
`received from the first terminal.”
`
`Limitation [1.5] of claim 1 recites a “retrieving the selected canned message
`
`from the first file using the message code received from the first terminal.” Patent
`
`Owner construes this term to mean “on the network operation center retrieving
`
`the selected canned message from the first file using the message code received
`
`from the first terminal.”
`
`This limitation does not describe who is retrieving the selected canned
`
`message. However, the preceding limitation, limitation [1.4], describes “sending
`
`the message code … to the network operation center.” The antecedent basis of
`
`the message code in this limitation is the message code of limitation [1.4]. As a
`
`result, since limitation [1.4] describes sending the message code to the network
`
`operation center and this message code is used in the retrieval of the selected
`
`canned message, the network operation center must be doing the retrieving.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`The term “text form” of limitation [1.6] means “the
`canned message retrieved on the network operation
`center in limitation [1.5]” and the term “message code
`form” of limitation [1.6] means “the message code
`received from the first terminal in limitation [1.5].”
`
`Limitation [1.6] of claim 1 recites the term “text form.” Patent Owner
`
`construes this term to mean “the canned message retrieved on the network
`
`operation center in limitation [1.5].” Limitation [1.6] of claim 1 recites the term
`
`“message code form.” Patent Owner construes this term to mean “the message
`
`code received from the first terminal in limitation [1.5].”
`
`The ’506 Patent explicitly describes that the network operation center
`
`(NOC) determines whether a receiving party can accept the canned message in
`
`code form, i.e., as received from the sending party, or whether the canned message
`
`must be transmitted in full text to the receiving party. Ex. 1001 at 6:7-12.
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`In other words, from the specification, the code form is as received from the
`
`sending party. Limitation [1.5] of claim 1 provides that the message code is
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`received from the first terminal, which is the sending party. As a result, the code
`
`form of limitation [1.6] must be “the message code received from the first terminal
`
`in limitation [1.5].”
`
`Similarly, from the specification, the full text form is the canned message.
`
`Limitation [1.5] of claim 1 provides that the canned message is retrieved on the
`
`network operation center. As a result, the text form of limitation [1.6] must be “the
`
`canned message retrieved on the network operation center in limitation [1.5].
`
`4.
`
`Limitation [1.6] is construed as “on the network
`operation center determining whether the second
`terminal can receive the canned message as the
`canned message retrieved by the network operation
`center or as the message code received from the first
`terminal.”
`
`Limitation [1.6] of claim 1 recites a “determining whether the second
`
`terminal can receive the canned message in a text form or message code form.”
`
`Patent Owner construes this term to mean “on the network operation center
`
`determining whether the second terminal can receive the canned message as the
`
`canned message retrieved by the network operation center or as the message
`
`code received from the first terminal.”
`
`This limitation does not describe who is making the determination.
`
`However, above the preceding limitation, limitation [1.5], was construed to
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`describe “retrieving the selected canned message on the network operation
`
`center.” The antecedent basis of the canned message code in this limitation is the
`
`selected canned message of limitation [1.5]. As a result, since limitation [1.5]
`
`describes retrieving the selected canned message on the network operation center
`
`and this selected canned message is used in the determining of this limitation, the
`
`network operation center must be doing the determining.
`
`Also, as described above, the term “text form” of limitation [1.6] is
`
`construed as “the canned message retrieved in limitation [1.5]” or simply “the
`
`canned message,” and the term “message code form” of limitation [1.6] is
`
`construed as “the message code received from the first terminal in limitation
`
`[1.5],” or simply “the message code.”
`
`5.
`
`The combination of limitations [1.4], [1.5], and [1.6]
`provides that the message code is sent from the first
`terminal to the network operation center, the network
`operation center retrieves
`the selected canned
`message using the message code, and the network
`operation center determines the form in which the
`second terminal can receive the canned message.
`
`The combination of limitations [1.4], [1.5], and [1.6] provides that the
`
`message code is sent from the first terminal to the network operation center, the
`
`network operation center retrieves the selected canned message using the message
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`code, and the network operation center determines the form in which the second
`
`terminal can receive the canned message.
`
`This is graphically depicted below in Annotation A of FIG. 1 of the ’506
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`Annotation A shows that the first terminal or calling terminal 10 sends the
`
`message code to the network operation center 12 (limitation [1.4]). Network
`
`operation center 12 uses the message code to retrieve the canned message
`
`(limitation [1.5]). Network operation center 12 then determines if the second
`
`terminal or receiving terminal 14 can receive the canned message or the message
`
`code. (limitation [1.6]).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`IV. REFERENCES RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER
`A.
`
`LaPorta
`
`LaPorta is directed to a two-way wireless messaging system that includes a
`
`messaging network having at least one user agent corresponding to each
`
`subscriber. Each user agent includes a plurality of stored predetermined messages.
`
`A predetermined message is forwarded to a desired destination in response to an
`
`originating message code that is received from a two-way messaging device of the
`
`subscriber. See Ex. 1004 at Abstract.
`
`In LaPorta, a message code from a subscriber is received by the subscriber’s
`
`user agent on the messaging network. The subscriber’s user agent determines the
`
`stored predetermined message (canned message) from the message code and, in
`
`turn, sends the predetermined message (full text message) from the messaging
`
`network to the desired destination. In other words, in LaPorta, a message sent on
`
`the uplink from a subscriber to the messaging network can be the form of a
`
`message code, while the message sent on the downlink from the messaging
`
`network to the recipient is always the full text of the message.
`
`FIG. 3 of LaPorta, shown below, illustrates the fact that LaPorta sends a
`
`message code on the uplink and the full text of the message on the downlink.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at FIG. 3.
`
`FIG. 3 of LaPorta shows that the message code (8) is sent from Thomas’s
`
`device 50a to two-way messaging network 14. On two-way messaging network
`
`14, Thomas’s user agent 50 expands the message code (8) into the full text
`
`predetermined message A) McDonalds, B) Burger King, and C) Taco Bell. This
`
`full text predetermined message is then sent to the devices of Dan, Mary, and Paul,
`
`58, 60, and 62, respectively.
`
`LaPorta also explicitly describes in reference to FIG. 7, shown below, that
`
`the messaging server 210 delivers the full message body to the recipients R1, R2,
`
`and R3, 202, 204, and 224 (message storage server, since R3 is inactive),
`
`respectively. Ex. 1004 at 14:58-67.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Id. (emphasis added).Id. (emphasis added).
`
`19
`
`1919
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 7. (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Ise
`
`Ise is directed to a radio pager system. In this system, the data transmitted is
`
`not the body of the message. Instead, a message code (message specifying
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`information) is transmitted so that the amount of data to be transmitted is reduced
`
`and the communication is kept secret. Ex. 1005 at Abstract.
`
`FIG. 3, shown below, is illustrative of the radio pager system of Ise. In this
`
`system, both the caller (M) and callee (PT) have memory cards (MC) that each
`
`includes that same table of messages and message codes. Ex. 1005 at 4:56-61.
`
`Table 1, shown below is an exemplary table of messages and message codes.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 7:1-10.
`
`Id. at FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`In reference to FIG. 3, the caller (M) selects a message code of a desired
`
`message from the table of messages and message codes. The caller (M) calls the
`
`pager base station (P) over telephone line T and exchange L. The caller (M) inputs
`
`the call number of the callee (PT) and the selected message code to the pager base
`
`station (P). The pager base station (P) transmits the message code and call number
`
`of the callee (PT) using the transmitting station (S). The callee (PT) receives the
`
`message code and call number, and the callee (PT) uses the message code to
`
`retrieve the message from the message table of its message card (MC).
`
`Ise explicitly discloses transmitting only the call number and the message
`
`code from a caller to a callee and not the body of the message. Ex. 1005 at 5:67-
`
`6:2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`C.
`
`Tett
`
`Tett is directed to a method and apparatus for controlling message delivery
`
`to wireless receiver devices. In this system and method, a textual message
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`intended for a wireless receiver device can be condensed by abbreviating various
`
`words in the message. Ex. 1006 at Abstract.
`
`FIG. 1, shown below, is illust