Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issued: April 8, 2014
`Filed: September 20, 1999
`Inventor: Daniel L. Marks
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`____________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-00606
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................................................. 2
`A.
`Certification the 657 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner .............. 2
`B.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................... 3
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ................................................ 3
`D.
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ......................................... 4
`III.
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b)) ........................... 4
`IV. Relevant Information Concerning the Patent ............................................. 5
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 5
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 5
`C.
`The 657 Patent ....................................................................................... 5
`1. Technical Overview ........................................................................ 5
`2. Prosecution History ......................................................................... 7
`D.
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims ........................................... 8
`1. “an Internet network” (All Petition Claims) ................................... 8
`2. “token” (All Petition Claims) ........................................................ 10
`3. “authenticated [first/second] user identity” and
`Claims) .......................................................................................... 10
`4. “pointer” (Claims 189, 465) .......................................................... 11
`5. “multimedia” (Claims 189, 465) ................................................... 12
`Precise Reasons for Relief Requested ........................................................ 13
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (Ex.1012) ....... 13
`Donath et al, The Sociable Web, (“Sociable Web”) (Ex.1019) .......... 16
`B.
`
`“[first/second] authenticated user identity” (All Petition
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Independent Claims 1, 189, and 465 Are Unpatentable Over
`
`C.
`
`Brown in View of the Sociable Web ................................................... 17
`1. Claim 1 Is Unpatentable ................................................................ 17
`2. Claim 189 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 31
`3. Claim 465 Is Unpatentable ............................................................ 36
`Sociable Web ....................................................................................... 36
`1. Dependent Claims 202 and 476 –Video ....................................... 36
`2. Dependent Claims 208 and 481 – Audio ...................................... 37
`3. Dependent Claims 214 and 486 – Graphic ................................... 37
`4. Dependent Claims 220 and 491 – Multimedia ............................. 37
`The ....................................................................................................... 38
`
`E.
`Client Software Alternatives Allow At Least One Group .................. 38
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 39
`
`D.
`
`Intermediate Dependent Claims 202, 208, 214, 220, 476, 481,
`486, and 492 Are Unpatentable Over Brown in View of
`
`Petition Claims, 203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487, and 492 Are
`Unpatentable Over Brown in View of Sociable Web – Two
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 (“657 Patent”), in IPR2016-01155 (the
`
`“Earlier IPR”), challenging over 150 of the 657 Patent’s 671 claims. The Earlier
`
`IPR was instituted on December 8, 2016 as to all challenged claims. On October
`
`20, 2016, more than four months after Petitioner’s § 315(b) bar date passed, Patent
`
`Owner served its infringement contentions on Microsoft in the 1:15-cv-103 case,
`
`identifying for the first time which of the 671 claims of the 657 Patent it accused
`
`Microsoft of infringing. In its infringement contentions, Patent Owner asserted
`
`independent claims 189 and 465 as well as dependent claims 203, 209, 215, 221,
`
`477, 482, 487, and 492 of the 657 Patent. Petitioner now submits this Petition for
`
`inter partes review of these dependent claims 203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487,
`
`and 492 (the “Petition Claims”), and concurrently moves to join this Petition with
`
`the Earlier IPR. See Paper 2. The additional eight claims challenged in this
`
`Petition directly depend from claims on which trial is already instituted, and
`
`contain a single limitation that is identical to one found in claims for which trial is
`
`already instituted in the Earlier IPR. The analysis of the Petition Claims with
`
`respect to this limitation may be found in the present petition in Section V.E
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`starting on page 38. That analysis is the same analysis set forth in the Earlier IPR
`
`in Section V.D.17 on pages 60-62.1
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification the 657 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies that the 657 Patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`On June 2, 2015, the Patent Owner filed a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`657 Patent by the Petitioner. Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corporation, 1:15-cv-103 (W.D.N.C.). This case was transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California (No. 3:16-cv-01729-RS). On June 3, 2016, the Petitioner
`
`filed IPR2016-01155 for inter partes review of the 657 Patent. While the
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the 657 Patent
`
`
`
`1 The present petition also addresses claims 189, 202, 208, 214, 220, 465, 476, 481,
`
`486, and 492 but only because the Petition Claims depend from these claims. The
`
`present petition also addresses claim 1, but only to make it clear that the analysis
`
`here is the same as in the Earlier IPR—the Earlier IPR analyzed claims 189 and
`
`465 with reference to claim 1. The analysis of claims 1, 189, 202, 208, 214, 220,
`
`465, 476, 481, 486, and 492 presented in this petition is the same analysis set forth
`
`in the Earlier IPR. Trial has already been instituted with respect to claims 1, 189,
`
`202, 208, 214, 220, 465, 476, 481, 486, and 492 in the Earlier IPR proceeding.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`more than one year before the date this Petition is filed, the time limitation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) “shall not apply to a request for joinder under” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`Because this Petition is accompanied by such a request (Paper 2), it complies with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`The real party of interest of this petition is Microsoft Corporation, located at
`
`One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. Lead and backup lead counsel are as
`
`follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`John W. McBride
`pro hac to be requested
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`(312) 853-7014
`
`Herman F. Webley
`pro hac to be requested
`hwebley@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8609
`
`Todd M. Siegel
`Reg. No. 73,232
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`(503)595-5300
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax number is
`
`(202)736-8711.
`
`The 657 Patent is or has been the subject of two district court proceedings.
`
`The 657 Patent has also been asserted against Facebook Inc. in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Western District of North Carolina (No. 1:15-CV-00102-GCM).
`
`This case was transferred to the Northern District of California (No. 3:16-cv-
`
`01730-RS).
`
`The 657 Patent is the subject of inter partes review Nos. IPR2016-01155
`
`and IPR2016-01159.
`
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`
`D.
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`
`Dependent claims 203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487, and 492 of the 657
`
`Patent (collectively the “Petition Claims”) are unpatentable over the prior art.
`
`Specifically, the Petition Claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”), attached hereto as Ex.1012, in
`
`view of Judith S. Donath et al., The Sociable Web, (“Sociable Web”), attached
`
`hereto as Ex.1019.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence
`
`relied upon, and the reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in §§ IV
`
`and V, below. The evidence relied upon in this petition is listed in Attachment B.
`
`IV. Relevant Information Concerning the Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date
`The 657 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/399,578 filed on
`
`September 20, 1999. Ex.1001(at 1). The 578 Application is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 08/617,658, which was filed on April 1, 1996. Id. The effective
`
`filing date of the claims of the 657 Patent is no earlier than April 1, 1996.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art for the 657 Patent in 1996 would have
`
`been a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, or
`
`equivalent, with at least two years’ experience designing and programming
`
`distributed multimedia computer systems, including experience with
`
`teleconferencing and on-line chat systems, such as on-line bulletin boards. Such a
`
`person would also be familiar with the prior art systems described in the 657
`
`Patent’s “Background of the Invention” section. Ex.1003(¶140).
`
`C. The 657 Patent
`1.
`Technical Overview
`The 657 Patent is directed to a computerized system with participator
`
`computers (shown in red in annotated Figure 1 below) and a controller computer
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`(green) linked by way of a network for communications (blue) involving groups of
`
`some of the participator computers. Ex.1001(1:12-18; 2:11-17). The controller
`
`computer is programmed “to arbitrate in accordance with predefined rules
`
`including said user identity, which ones of the participator computers can interact
`
`in one of a plurality of groups communicating through the controller computer and
`
`to distribute real time data to the respective ones of the groups.” Id.(2:18-24;
`
`Fig.1; 4:36-5:16).
`
`Ex.1001(Fig.1).
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`The 657 Patent also explains that “participator software” (yellow) runs on
`
`each of the participator computers to permit users to interact with the system and
`
`“to send and/or receive a multimedia information message[s] to the controller
`
`computer, which arbitrates which of the participator computers receives the
`
`multimedia information message.” Ex.1001(2:25-39). The controller computer
`
`stores “tokens” in a database, “which are pieces of information associated with
`
`user identity” and which “can be by user, group, and content.” Ex.1001(7:49-59).
`
`The controller computer uses tokens to control communication among the
`
`participator computers, including “what is said in a group,” which the patent refers
`
`to as “censorship.” Id.(8:10-33).
`
`The 657 Patent discloses that multimedia information is communicated by
`
`way of “pointers” such as URLs. Ex.1001(5:11-16; 10:18-43). Other than sending
`
`multimedia as URLs pointing to pre-stored files, the 657 Patent identifies no other
`
`way of sending multimedia. Ex.1003(¶67).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`2.
`The 657 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/399,578, filed on
`
`September 20, 1999 and claiming priority as a continuation from an application
`
`filed on April 1, 1996. Ex.1001(at 1). During prosecution, among other rejections,
`
`various claims were finally rejected as obvious over Brown in view of Tarau et al.,
`
`LogiMOO: an Extensible Multi-user Virtual World with Natural Language
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Control. Ex.1002(at 846-56). Simultaneously, the examiner noted that certain
`
`claims, including claim 18, were objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. Id.(at 845). The applicant responded by submitting an
`
`amendment and a declaration by Dr. Hollaar arguing that Brown does not disclose
`
`“in the communications,” the examiner improperly combined the separate steps of
`
`forming groups and censoring, and the motivation to modify Brown provided by
`
`the Examiner was improper. Id.(at 669-33). After receiving a subsequent final
`
`office action, the applicant amended each independent claim to include the
`
`limitation of objected claim 18 regarding handling receiving a URL. Id.(at 204-
`
`374). Based upon these amendments, the Examiner allowed the claims. Id.(at
`
`845-46; 149-57).
`
`D. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`In this proceeding, as the 657 Patent has expired, the claims must be
`
`interpreted in accord with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`See In re Rambus Inc. 753 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`1.
`“an Internet network” (All Petition Claims)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “an Internet network” is a network connected
`
`to the Internet. Ex.1003(¶¶110-114).
`
`The 657 claims recite “an Internet network.” This is different from simply
`
`“the Internet,” which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`a network of networks. Ex.1005 (Mosaic Quick Tour for Windows) at 8;
`
`Ex.1003(¶111). Interpreting “an Internet network” to mean simply “the Internet”
`
`would read “network” out of the claims. The natural reading of this term to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be that it refers to some network that is
`
`connected with the Internet. Ex.1003(¶111). Thus, the ordinary meaning of “an
`
`Internet network” is a network connected to the Internet.
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which explains that the connection
`
`between the controller computer and participator computer can, but need not be, an
`
`Internet connection. See, e.g., Ex.1001(7:39-48; Abstract). The 657 Patent also
`
`states, with respect to the general description of the disclosed system, that “[t]he
`
`Connection 13 [i.e., between the controller computer and the participator
`
`computers] can be an Internet or more particularly, a World Wide Web
`
`connection.” Ex.1001(4:59-60). A person of ordinary skill would understand that
`
`an Internet or World Wide Web connection would be made via one or more
`
`computer networks that were connected to the Internet – such as a user’s specific
`
`Internet service provider or telephone service provider – and would not necessarily
`
`pass through all networks that make up the Internet. Ex.1003(¶113). Thus, in this
`
`example, the 657 Patent discloses communications over a network connected to the
`
`Internet, i.e., “an Internet network.”
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`2.
`“token” (All Petition Claims)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “token” is a piece of information used to
`
`control access to content or one or more services. Ex.1003(¶¶115-117)
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which characterizes “tokens” as
`
`“pieces of information,” Ex.1001(7:51), that are stored in a database, id.(7:49-59),
`
`and may be manipulated by an administrator, id.(10:44-53). The patent further
`
`states that the storage of tokens may be “by user, group, and content, and
`
`distribution controls can also be placed on the user's tokens as well as the
`
`database.” Id.(7:57-59). The 657 patent further states that tokens are used to
`
`control access to services of the system, such as the ability to communicate with or
`
`see other users, and the ability to send messages of different sizes or types.
`
`Id.(7:60-8:25).
`
`3.
`
`“authenticated [first/second] user identity” and “[first/second]
`authenticated user identity” (All Petition Claims)
`
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “authenticated user identity” is identifying
`
`information the system has confirmed is associated with a user who may be
`
`provided at least some access to the services of the system. Ex.1003(¶¶118-121).
`
`The 657 claims recite “authenticated [first/second] user identity.” A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand “authentication” refers to the process
`
`by which a system verifies a user seeking access to the system is authorized to
`
`access the system. See, e.g., Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 31; Ex.1010(Newton’s
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Dictionary) at 102; Ex.1003(¶119). For example, the system may compare the
`
`user’s credentials (i.e., information identifying the user) with those on file in a
`
`database of authorized users. See Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 31; see also
`
`Ex.1007(Inside Windows 95) at 366; Ex.1008(Inside Windows NT) at 76. Thus,
`
`the ordinary meaning of “authenticated user identity” is identifying information
`
`the system has confirmed is associated with a user who may be provided at least
`
`some access to the services of the system.
`
`This is consistent with the 657 Patent, which explains that access to the
`
`system can be controlled “by identity of the user, which is associated with the
`
`user’s tokens.” Ex.1001(8:12-13). “[T]he session starts with verifying the user’s
`
`identity” after “the user enters his/her assigned login/password combination.”
`
`Id.(8:57-61). Thus, the 657 Patent describes using identifying information
`
`associated with a user to grant or deny access to the system.
`
`4.
`“pointer” (Claims 1, 189, 465)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “pointer” is a link or reference to a file, data,
`
`or service. Ex.1003(¶¶122-124).
`
`In the field of computer programming, “pointer” is a term of art that refers to
`
`a variable that contains a reference to the memory location of some other data.
`
`E.g., Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 308. The 657 Patent uses the term “pointer” in a
`
`broader sense than this definition, however, because it indicates that a “pointer”
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`can include a URL. Ex.1001(5:11-16). A URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a
`
`string of text that is used to point to a resource available on the Internet (e.g.,
`
`http://www.microsoft.com), such as a file, data or a service. Ex.1011 at 1, 4-15;
`
`Ex.1003(¶123). Because the 657 Patent gives a URL as an example of a “pointer,”
`
`the broadest reasonable construction of this term must encompass the functionality
`
`provided by URLs.
`
`5.
`“multimedia” (Claims 1, 189, 220, 465, 491)
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “multimedia” is media comprising more than
`
`one data type, such as audio, video, or text, or a link to such media.
`
`Ex.1003(¶¶125-129).
`
`The ordinary meaning of the term “multimedia” to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the mid-1990s was media comprising more than one data type, such as
`
`audio, video, graphics or text. Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 264; Ex.1003(¶126).
`
`The 657 Patent does not define the term “multimedia,” but it does identify
`
`“video and sound” and URLs as examples of multimedia content. Ex.1001(8:47-
`
`56). Thus, as used in the context of the 657 Patent the term “multimedia”
`
`generally tracks the ordinary meaning of the term to those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, i.e., more than one medium, where the different media can include at least
`
`audio, video, or text. The specification also explicitly states that a URL is a type of
`
`multimedia. Ex.1001(8:54-56). Thus, links or references to multimedia are
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`themselves considered to be multimedia for the purposes of the 657 Patent,
`
`because, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, URLs are
`
`simply strings of text. See Ex.1011 at 1, 14; Ex.1003(¶128).
`
`V.
`
`Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (Ex.1012)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) was filed on August
`
`18, 1995, Ex.1012 at 1, and is therefore prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Brown discloses an “on-line services network” comprising multiple
`
`application servers running on-line services such as chat, mail, bulletin board
`
`systems (“BBS”), and file transfer manager (“FTM”) services. Ex.1012(2:19-25,
`
`2:36-39). Users access the on-line services and content by connecting to the
`
`servers through a wide area network (“WAN”). Ex.1012(2:26-36; 6:62-66). The
`
`WAN may include, for example, “X.25 lines, TCP/IP lines, and ISDN (Integrated
`
`Service Digital Network) lines.” Ex.1012(7:4-6); Ex.1003(¶143)
`
`Brown’s on-line services network is illustrated in Fig. 1:
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Ex.1012(Fig. 1). The Chat service may include voice and/or video capabilities.
`
`
`
`Id.(9:54-55).
`
`Brown’s network includes multiple gateway computers that “link incoming
`
`calls from end users to the application servers.” Ex.1012 (7:38-40). The gateway
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`computers control access to on-line services by handling user requests to access a
`
`service and initiate a “logon session.” Ex.1012(9:12-22). Users access on-line
`
`services through microcomputers running corresponding “client applications.”
`
`Ex.1012(8:47-56); Ex.1003(¶¶145-146).
`
`The Brown application servers and gateways control access to on-line
`
`services (and the specific content provided thereby) by consulting an “access rights
`
`database” stored in one or more security servers or in one or more of the
`
`application servers or gateways. Ex.1012(2:63-66; 7:48-56; 15:11-13; 22:44-48).
`
`The access rights database contains “the access rights data for all users of the
`
`network,” Ex.1012(7:55-56), and may store access rights data on a user-by-user
`
`basis and also by “user groups.” Ex.1012(18:57-66; 22:62-23:33; Fig. 6);
`
`Ex.1003(¶147).
`
`Upon receipt of an access rights query for user X, a security server may
`
`return to the requesting server or gateway an “access rights list for user X” that
`
`“specifies the access rights of user X.” Ex.1012(25:64-26:2). The access rights
`
`list is stored by the requesting application server or gateway in an “access rights
`
`cache,” and may be cached in multiple different application servers and gateway
`
`computers in the network at the same time. Ex.1012(8:3-8; 16:13-25; 24: 2-11;
`
`25:48-51; 26:4-10; 27:53-58; 28:29-37); Ex.1003(¶148).
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`The access rights stored in the Brown access rights database specify the
`
`content objects and categories of content to which each user of the network has
`
`access. Ex.1012(2:59-3:7). Each category is associated with what Brown calls a
`
`“token” or identifier. Ex.1012(2:66-3:4). The access rights and tokens are used by
`
`the system to control access to the content and services of the system, such as the
`
`chat and BBS service. See, e.g., Ex.1012(3:48-62; 13:6-8; 13:16-23;; 20:8-27;
`
`14:18-25; 25:23-27). When a user attempts to access a service or content object
`
`(e.g., the Chat service or a particular chat room), the service uses the security token
`
`associated with the node and the user’s identity (i.e., account number) to query the
`
`access rights database and determine whether the user may access that node. See
`
`Ex.1012(15:38-52; 27:24-30); Ex.1003(¶¶149-151).
`
`Brown’s access rights also determine what kind of privileges the user enjoys
`
`within a service. Ex.1012(18:40-44). For example, a user may be given the right
`
`to access a service but not the right to participate (“observer”) or the user may be
`
`given the right to participate and also moderate chat conversations (“host”).
`
`Ex.1012(17:35-18:5); Ex.1003(¶152).
`
`B. Donath et al, The Sociable Web, (“Sociable Web”) (Ex.1019)
`Judith S. Donath et al., The Sociable Web, was publicly available at least by
`
`October 20, 1994, and is therefore prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Ex.1031(¶¶ 1-13); Ex.1003(¶153); Ex.1014 at 1-2; Ex.1016 at 1-5; Ex.1017 at ¶83;
`
`see also Ex. 1020.
`
`Sociable Web was presented at the Second World Wide Web Conference
`
`‘94 Mosaic and the Web. Ex. 1015 at ix. The conference occurred from October
`
`17 to 20, 1994. Id. at i. This is further confirmed by a trip report documented
`
`shortly after the conference. See Ex.1014 at 1. Additionally, in Ex.1016, one
`
`conference attendee confirms that “Judith Donath presented her Sociable Web
`
`project….” Id. at 2; see also Ex.1003(¶154). Sociable Web was published on the
`
`web page of the Second World Wide Web Conference ’94. Ex.1015 at iii; Ex.1016
`
`at 1. Ex.1030 is the archived version of Sociable Web from the electronic
`
`proceedings. Ex.1003(¶¶155-156).
`
`Among other things, Sociable Web discloses an improved chat system.
`
`Ex.1019 at 1. Sociable Web describes a “Webtalk” client that allows Internet users
`
`to access web pages where they can chat. Id. at 1, 4. Sociable Web also explains
`
`that its system allows users to “insert hypertext links, sounds and images amidst
`
`their normal conversational text.” Id. at 1; see also Ex.1003(¶157).
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 189, and 465 Are Unpatentable Over
`Brown in View of the Sociable Web
`1.
`
`Claim 1 Is Unpatentable
`a.
`Claim 1’s preamble requires the following three elements:
`
`Preamble
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`(i)
`
`“a method of communicating via an Internet
`network”
`
`Under Phillips, “an Internet network” means “a network connected to the
`
`Internet.” §IV.D.1; Ex.1003(¶¶110-114). Brown discloses providing an Internet
`
`feed through the BBS service, thereby communicating information via the Internet.
`
`Ex.1012(6:62-66; 10:7-15); Ex.1003( ¶¶159-161). Brown’s network relies on a
`
`WAN that includes TCP/IP lines (i.e., complying with the Internet Protocol, which
`
`was used in Internet networks). Ex.1012(6:67-7:6); Ex.1003(¶162). It was also
`
`known that the computer and telephone networks of “telecommunications
`
`providers” disclosed in Brown (Ex.1012(7:1)) were connected to the Internet and
`
`were part of the Internet. Ex.1003(¶163); see also Ex.1018 at 9 (discussing Sprint
`
`providing internet access via “Sprint Link”).
`
`To the extent one might argue that Brown does not disclose communicating
`
`via an Internet network, it would have been obvious to include such functionality
`
`in the system of Brown. For example, Sociable web discloses an improved chat
`
`system over the “World Wide Web” and references various internet chat clients
`
`that were known at the time. Ex.1019 at 1; Ex.1003(¶164). Given Brown’s
`
`disclosure of a “World Wide Web browsing service” and the drive to expand
`
`network service offering to the Internet prevalent at the time, it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the chat-over-the-Internet disclosed in Sociable Web with
`
`Brown to expand and efficientize online communications. Ex.1012(2:37-39; 7:33;
`
`18
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`9:45-54); Ex.1003(¶¶165-167). Indeed, this is confirmed by a separate application
`
`referenced in Brown (Ex.1022), which explicitly discloses Brown’s “data centers”
`
`in Fig.1 can be interconnected via the Internet. Ex.1022(5:31-46); Ex.1003(¶¶168-
`
`172). Brown therefore alone or in view of Sociable Web discloses this element.
`
`Ex.1003(¶¶159-173).
`
`(ii)
`
`“by using a computer system including a
`controller computer”
`
`Brown discloses a system comprising “a plurality of application servers”
`
`arranged into service groups “that correspond to specific on-line services” and
`
`control access to those services. Ex.1012(2:25-39; 7:18-20); Ex.1003(¶174).
`
`Brown explains that its on network includes multiple gateway computers that “link
`
`incoming calls from end users to the application servers” and handle “logon
`
`sessions.” Ex.1012(7:38-40; 9:12-22); Ex.1003(¶175). Brown therefore discloses
`
`this element. Ex.1003(¶¶174-177).
`
`(iii) “and a database which serves as a repository of
`tokens for other programs to access”
`
`Brown discloses an “access rights database” that stores access rights for all
`
`users of the network on a user-by-user basis or by user groups. Ex.1012(2:63-66;
`
`7:48-56; 15:11-13; 22:44-48); Ex.1003(¶¶179-180). Brown’s access rights
`
`database specifies the services and content objects that users or groups of users of
`
`the system may access using “content category identifiers” or “tokens.”
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Ex.1012(2:59-3:7); Ex.1003(¶182). The Brown system relies on the user-specific
`
`access rights and “tokens” to control access to services and content within the
`
`Brown network as the various application servers and gateways generate user-
`
`specific access rights queries in response to user requests. Ex.1012(3:27-30; 3:48-
`
`62; 20:8-27; 24:1-11; 25:23-27; 25:64-26:2); Ex.1003(¶¶181, 183).
`
`Both the Brown access rights and the “tokens” are therefore “tokens” as
`
`claimed in the 657 Patent because they are used to control access to content or one
`
`or more services, and the Brown access rights database is a “database” and a
`
`“repository of tokens” because it stores such information for later use by the
`
`services within the Brown network. §IV.D.2; Ex.1012(17:25-34; 20:8-27; 22:44-
`
`48; 24:1-11; 27:24-33); Ex.1003(¶¶181-183, 186); Ex.1009(MS Dictionary) at 105.
`
`In addition, Brown explains that, after requesting access rights for a given
`
`user X, the application server or gateway that made the request receives an “access
`
`rights list for user X” that is stored in cache. Ex.1012(3:27-30; 24:1-11; 25:64-
`
`26:2); Ex.1003(¶184). Each cached access rights list stored in the application
`
`servers is a “token” as claimed in the 657 Patent because it is used to control access
`
`to system services. Ex.1012(25:55-26:62; Fig. 8); Ex.1003(¶185). And the cache
`
`storing the access rights lists in each application server and gateway is a
`
`“database” and a “repository of tokens” because it holds the token for later use by
`
`services and programs within the network. Ex.1012(3:46-48; 24:13-18; 25:48-51;
`
`20
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`28:4-15; 27:53-58; 28:29-45; Fig. 9); Ex.1003(¶¶185-186). Brown therefore
`
`discloses this element. Ex.1003(¶¶178-188).
`
`(iv) “thereby affording information to each of a
`plurality of participator computers which are
`otherwise independent of each other”
`
`Brown’s network comprises a plurality of client microcomputers
`
`“distributed over a wide geographic area” and communicate only upon entry of
`
`valid user-specific logon credentials. See Ex.1012(2:34-36; 6:62-7:4; 8: 37-39;
`
`9:12-15; 16:19-25; Fig. 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`this means the microcomputers