Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issued: April 8, 2014
`Filed: September 20, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
` OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW ............................................................................ 1
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a)) ..................................................... 1
`B.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) .............................................. 2
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ............................................... 2
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 3
`E.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 3
`F.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 5
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(b)) ................................................................................................... 5
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PATENT ................. 5
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................ 5
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 6
`C.
`The ’657 Patent .................................................................................... 6
`1.
`Technical Overview ................................................................... 6
`2.
`Prosecution History .................................................................... 8
`Construction of Terms Used in the Claims .......................................... 9
`1.
`“an Internet network” ................................................................. 9
`2.
`“token” ..................................................................................... 10
`3.
`“authenticated [first/second] user identity” and
`“[first/second] authenticated user identity” ............................. 11
`“pointer” ................................................................................... 12
`4.
`“multimedia” ............................................................................ 13
`5.
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 14
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to Brown et al. (“Brown”) (Ex.1012) ...... 14
`B. Donath et al, The Sociable Web, (“Sociable Web”) (Ex.1019) ......... 17
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 189 and 465 Are Unpatentable Over
`Brown in View of the Sociable Web .................................................. 18
`1.
`Claim 189 Is Unpatentable ....................................................... 18
`2.
`Claim 465 Is Unpatentable ....................................................... 35
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01156 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01157 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01158 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01159 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01067 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01141 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01155 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 4
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................passim
`In re Rambus Inc.
`753 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 9
`Süd-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 22
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR ............................................................................. 3
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01729-YGR ............................................................................. 3
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 2
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1003
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`1001
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`1002
`Expert Declaration of Christopher Schmandt, filed as Ex. 1003 in
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations LLC, Case IPR2016-
`01155
`Curriculum Vitae of Christopher Schmandt
`1004
`1005 Mosaic Quick Tour for Windows
`RFC 1459
`1006
`Inside Windows 95
`1007
`Inside Windows NT
`1008
`1009 MS Dictionary
`Newton’s Dictionary
`1010
`RFC 1738
`1011
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 (“Brown”)
`1012
`[Reserved]
`1013
`1014 WWW Fall 94 Trip Report
`[Reserved]
`1015
`1016 WWW Fall 94 CSCW Papers
`Expert Report of Bruce M. Maggs
`1017
`“MUD Wrestling on the Internet,” Boardwatch Magazine (Sep. 1994)
`1018
`Donath et al., The Sociable Web (“Sociable Web”)
`1019
`Donath Decl. – Email compilation
`1020
`Donath Decl. – Second Int’l WWW Conference
`1021
`U.S. Patent No. 5,774,668
`1022
`1023 Win32 Programmer’s Reference
`The Microsoft Network Tour Guide
`1024
`Computer Gaming World (May 1993)
`1025
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`[Reserved]
`1026
`The Whole Internet User’s Guide
`1027
`Growing and Maintaining a Successful BBS
`1028
`“Galacticomm Announces Internet Connectivity Option,” Boardwatch
`1029
`Magazine (Sep. 1994)
`Archived Sociable Web
`1030
`Donath Declaration, filed as Ex. 1031 in Microsoft Corporation v.
`1031
`Windy City Innovations LLC, Case IPR2016-01155
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioner Facebook,
`
`Inc. (“Facebook”) respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 189 and 465
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 (“’657 Patent”). Facebook is filing concurrently
`
`herewith a Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22 and 42.122(b), requesting that the Board institute inter partes review and
`
`join the present proceeding with pending IPR2016-01155 as to these two claims.
`
`The Examiner of the ’657 Patent allowed the patent due to one limitation:
`
`“wherein the facilitating receiving the communications that are sent from the
`
`second participator computer to the first participator computer includes facilitating
`
`receiving communications that include an Internet URL, and further including
`
`handling the Internet URL via the controller computer system so as to find content
`
`specified to by the Internet URL, and facilitating presenting the content at the
`
`output device.” Ex.1002 at 420. Because, as shown below, the prior art discloses
`
`this conventional functionality regarding handling a URL, which was the basis for
`
`allowing all of the claims of the ’657 Patent allowable, the claims of the ’657
`
`Patent challenged herein are unpatentable.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a))
`Facebook certifies that the ’657 Patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`and that Facebook is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. See also 37
`
`CFR § 42.122(b) (“The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) shall not apply when
`
`the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder”).
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`B.
`This Petition requests review of two (2) claims of the ’657 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, a payment of $23,000 is submitted herewith. This payment is
`
`calculated based on a $9,000 request fee, and a post-institution fee of $14,000. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). This Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(1).
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`The real party of interest of this petition is Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”).
`
`Lead and backup lead counsel are as follows:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`T: (703) 456-8668
`F: (703) 456-8100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5808
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Service Information
`D.
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’657 patent, PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ., P.O. Box 7141, Chicago, IL 60680. The
`
`Petitioner may be served at the addresses provided above for lead and back-up
`
`counsel, and consents to electronic service at those addresses, including service
`
`email address: FB_WindyCity_PTAB_IPR@cooley.com.
`
`E. Related Matters
`Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”) asserted the ’657 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) against Facebook in a suit filed June 2, 2015, and served June 3, 2015, now
`
`styled, Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-
`
`YGR, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
`
`Oakland Division. Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Case
`
`No. 4:16-cv-01729-YGR, involving the ’657 patent is also pending in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.
`
`In addition, the ’657 Patent and related patents are currently the subject of
`
`the following instituted IPR proceedings:
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`• Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-
`
`01155 (PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging the ’657 Patent);
`
`• Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01159
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging the ’657 Patent);
`
`• Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01156
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging related U.S. Patent No. 8,458,245 (“’245
`
`Patent”));
`
`• Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-
`
`01141 (PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging the ’245 Patent);
`
`• Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01157
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging related U.S. Patent No. 8,407,356 (“’356
`
`Patent”));
`
`• Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-
`
`01067 (PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging the ’356 Patent); and
`
`• Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01158
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging related U.S. Patent No. 8,473,552).
`
`The ’356 Patent is also the subject of a concurrently filed petition for inter
`
`partes review (“the ’356 Petition”) and motion for joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), requesting that the Board institute
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`inter partes review and join the ’356 Petition with pending proceeding IPR2016-
`
`01067.
`
`Power of Attorney
`F.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`Independent claims 189 and 465 of the ’657 Patent (collectively the
`
`“Petition Claims”) are unpatentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Petition
`
`Claims of the ’657 Patent 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.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence
`
`relied upon, and the reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in § IV,
`
`below.
`
`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.
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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
`Technical Overview
`1.
`The ’657 Patent is directed to a computerized system with participator
`
`computers (shown in red in annotated Figure 1 below) and a controller computer
`
`(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).
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`Ex.1001(Fig.1).
`
`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).
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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
`
`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
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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”
`1.
`Under Phillips, the meaning of “an Internet network” is a network connected
`
`to the Internet. Ex.1003(¶¶110-114).
`
`
`
`1 For consistency in view of Facebook’s Motion for Joinder, this Petition states the
`
`same claim interpretations herein that were stated in the original Petition in
`
`IPR2016-01155. Facebook also maintains the positions it has set forth in other
`
`pending inter partes review proceedings regarding the ’657 Patent and related
`
`patents, for purposes of those proceedings. Facebook does not believe that there is
`
`any material difference between the stated positions for purposes of the respective
`
`proceedings.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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
`
`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
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`example, the ’657 Patent discloses communications over a network connected to
`
`the Internet, i.e., “an Internet network.”
`
`“token”
`2.
`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”
`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
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`“pointer”
`4.
`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.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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”
`
`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.
`
`“multimedia”
`5.
`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
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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
`
`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:
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`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
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`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).
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`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).
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`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 189 and 465 Are Unpatentable Over Brown
`in View of the Sociable Web
`Claim 189 Is Unpatentable
`1.
`Preamble
`a.
`Claim 189’s preamble requires the following three