`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`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
`Issue Date: April 8, 2014
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00622
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’657 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`
`III. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`Brown .................................................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`The Sociable Web (Ex. 1019) ............................................................... 6
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THE SINGLE GROUND
`ADVANCED IN THE PETITION AND THE PETITION SHOULD
`BE DENIED .................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`The Law of Obviousness ....................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Brown Does Not Disclose if the user identities are able to form
`the group, [forming / forms] the group and [facilitating /
`facilitates] sending the communications that are not censored
`from the first participator computer to the second participator
`computer ................................................................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Brown Does Not Disclose the Required Condition if the
`user identities are able to form the group................................. 10
`
`Joining a Chat Room Does Not Disclose Forming a
`Group ........................................................................................ 12
`
`3.
`
`The Sociable Web Paper Does Not Save the Petition .............. 13
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 14
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.,
`580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 8
`
`GN Resound A/S v. Oticon A/S,
`IPR2015-00103 (P.T.A.B., June 18, 2015) ........................................................ 10
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 7, 8
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 6
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v.
`Eli Lilly & Co.,
`849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................... 7
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 8
`
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 9
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On January 7, 2017, Facebook Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed an inter partes
`
`review petition (Paper 2, the “Petition”), challenging Claims 189 and 465 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent Number 8,694,657 (Ex. 1001, the “’657
`
`Patent”). On the same day, Petitioner filed a motion to join the Petition to
`
`IPR2016-01155, requesting that the Board exercise its discretion despite Petitioner
`
`delaying the filing of this Petition since June 2, 2015.1 To date, Facebook Inc. and
`
`Microsoft Corporation have filed 21 inter partes review petitions against Patent
`
`Owner over the same group of patents including the ’657 Patent which is now the
`
`subject of 6 IPR proceedings.2 For the Board’s convenience, Patent Owner
`
`submits the following list of pending proceedings involving the parties:
`
`
`1 On June 2, 2015, Patent Owner filed a complaint for patent infringement against
`
`Facebook (Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR) and Microsoft (Case No. 4:16-cv-
`
`01730-YGR) in the Western District of North Carolina, asserting that Facebook
`
`and Microsoft have each infringed the ’657 Patent and three other patents. On
`
`March 16, 2016, the cases were transferred to the Northern District of California.
`
`2 On June 3, 2016, Microsoft and Facebook filed 11 petitions. Four of the 11
`
`Petitions were denied institution. In January 2017, Microsoft and Facebook filed
`
`an additional 10 petitions, including this Petition, all seeking joinder to one of the
`
`11 previously-filed petitions. The ’657 is currently the subject of 6 petitions,
`
`including this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`Case No.
`
`IPR2016-
`01067
`IPR2016-
`01137
`IPR2016-
`01138
`IPR2016-
`01141
`IPR2016-
`01146
`IPR2016-
`01147
`IPR2016-
`01155
`IPR2016-
`01156
`IPR2016-
`01157
`IPR2016-
`01158
`IPR2016-
`01159
`IPR2017-
`00603
`IPR2017-
`00605
`IPR2017-
`00606
`IPR2017-
`00622
`IPR2017-
`00624
`IPR2017-
`00655
`IPR2017-
`00656
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent
`No.
`8407356 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8473552 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8473552 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8458245 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8473552 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8473552 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8694657 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8458245 Facebook Inc.
`
`8407356 Facebook Inc.
`
`8473552 Facebook Inc.
`
`8694657 Facebook Inc.
`
`8473552 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8407356 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8694657 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8694657 Facebook Inc.
`
`8407356 Facebook Inc.
`
`8458245 Facebook Inc.
`
`8694657 Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Status
`
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`
`Instituted
`
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`Instituted
`
`Institution
`Denied
`Institution
`Denied
`Instituted
`
`Instituted
`
`Instituted
`
`Instituted
`
`Instituted
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent
`No.
`8694657 Microsoft
`Corporation
`8458245 Facebook Inc.
`
`8458245 Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Status
`
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`Windy City Innovations,
`LLC
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`Case No.
`
`IPR2017-
`00659
`IPR2017-
`00669
`IPR2017-
`00709
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that this Preliminary Response
`
`demonstrates that the Challenged Claims are not obvious over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,941,947 to Brown (Ex. 1012, “Brown”) in combination with a purported
`
`publication entitled “The Sociable Web” (Ex. 1019). Specifically, Petitioner fails
`
`to show that Brown alone fails to disclose or suggest the claim limitation: if the
`
`user identities are able to form the group, forming the group and facilitating
`
`sending the communications that are not censored from the first participator
`
`computer to the second participator computer, wherein the sending is in real time
`
`and via the Internet network. The Sociable Web paper, while not offered to
`
`disclose this limitation, does not cure this deficiency. Accordingly, the Petition
`
`should be denied because there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`succeed on any of its allegations of unpatentability.
`
`II. THE ’657 PATENT
`
`The ’657 Patent was filed during the infancy of the Internet, over 20 years
`
`ago, long before real-time digital communications were as ubiquitous as they are
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`today. The Inventor, Dr. Daniel Marks, recognized problems with available
`
`communications systems and disclosed a system that solved those problems and
`
`whose relevance is still felt today. The first problem identified by Dr. Marks was
`
`the difficulty in applying the “corporate” conference model, like Brown, to the
`
`Internet. (Ex. 1001 at 1:34-45.) In the corporate model, systems were often
`
`connected over private connections such as leased lines, LANs or WANs. Because
`
`of the architecture of these corporate solutions, less emphasis was placed on
`
`security, privacy, and platform-independence. Such corporate solutions were ill-
`
`suited for real-time Internet communications. The second problem was that “chat
`
`rooms,” such as America On Line (“AOL”), had not yet reached Internet maturity.
`
`Chat rooms were closed platforms that provided limited options for users to access
`
`the systems. (Ex. 1001 at 53-63.) Additionally, these chat rooms utilized
`
`proprietary connections and protocols and, prior to April 1996, AOL did not offer
`
`Internet-based real time communications. The problems with these prior systems
`
`also included security issues, privacy issues, and real-time multimedia
`
`communication issues.
`
`Dr. Marks described a system to overcome the problems of both the
`
`“corporate” conference environments, such as those disclosed in Brown, as well as
`
`the problems with the ISP environment, such as AOL. Dr. Marks’ solution focuses
`
`on a control computer that includes a database that stores tokens and that affords
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`information to other programs––a concept that did not exist in the prior art. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`database and tokens provided for the persistence necessary in a distributed
`
`environment such as the Internet. The tokens also provided security and privacy
`
`solutions that were not relevant in the context of corporate systems like Brown.
`
`III. THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Brown
`
`
`
`Brown was cited during the prosecution of the ’657 Patent and the patentee
`
`overcame all rejections based on Brown. Brown discloses a different type of
`
`system from the Challenged Claims: a bulletin board system (“BBS”) that operated
`
`over a Local Area Network or a Wide Area Network, not over the Internet.
`
`Brown’s chat system is also limited in the very ways that the inventor of the ’657
`
`Patent sought to overcome with his invention. (Ex. 1001 at 1:33-37; 1:56-59.)
`
`
`
`While Brown describes a “client application” (Ex. 1012 at 8:53-59), the only
`
`software contemplated is the “Sysop Tools,” which is a client application of the
`
`Directory Service responsible for editing properties of the system (Ex. 1012 at
`
`14:52-15:4). The Sysop Tools permit system administrators, i.e. Sysops, to control
`
`a wide range of features depending on what privileges the Author of the software
`
`application assigned to the Sysop. Petitioner cites to a number of privileges
`
`assigned typically to a Sysop: to control access rights (Ex. 1012 at 10:31-35); to
`
`delete messages (10:54-65); to create, delete, and modify nodes having properties
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`which define content objects (14:41-51).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`Because Brown does not describe an Internet-capable system, Brown
`
`describes exactly the types of systems that the ’657 Patent acknowledges are part
`
`of the prior art, and the very systems that the inventor of the ’657 Patent sought to
`
`improve. Moreover, the ’657 Patent acknowledges email, chat, and conference
`
`abilities were known in the prior art, but that those systems, like the Brown,
`
`required control of the software and hardware of the network. (Ex. 1001 at 1:38-
`
`52.)
`
`B.
`
`The Sociable Web (Ex. 1019)
`
`Petitioner does not rely on the Sociable Web paper to disclose, nor does it
`
`disclose, anything related to: user identities, forming groups, any determinations
`
`concerning if user identities are able to form a group, censorship, or sending non-
`
`censored communications from a first participator computer to a second
`
`participator computer.
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THE SINGLE GROUND
`ADVANCED IN THE PETITION AND THE PETITION SHOULD BE
`DENIED
`
`A. The Law of Obviousness
`
`
`
`Obviousness is a question of law premised on underlying facts. Kinetic
`
`Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Those predicated facts include: the scope and content of the prior art; the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims; and the level of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`the pertinent art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The
`
`question is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but
`
`whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex,
`
`Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`
`
`In arriving at an obviousness determination, the Board must sufficiently
`
`explain and support the conclusions that the prior-art references disclose all the
`
`elements recited in the Challenged Claims and a relevant skilled artisan not only
`
`could have made but would have been motivated to combine all the prior-art
`
`references in the way the patent claims and reasonably expected success. Pers.
`
`Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That is, even
`
`if all the claim elements are found across a number of references, an obviousness
`
`determination must consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been motivated to combine those references. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Los Angeles
`
`Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d
`
`1049, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (vacating and remanding an obviousness
`
`determination, in part, because the Board did not make factual finding as to
`
`whether there was an apparent reason to combine all three prior art references to
`
`achieve the claimed invention and whether a person of skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success from such a combination.) This
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`combinability determination, as supported by an articulated motivation to combine,
`
`requires a plausible rationale as to why those prior art references would have
`
`worked together.” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). Absent some articulated rationale, a “common sense” finding is no
`
`different than the conclusory statement “would have been obvious.” In re Van Os,
`
`844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Of additional importance, “knowledge of a
`
`problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to
`
`combine particular references.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363,
`
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`Moreover, even if all the claim elements are found across a number of
`
`combinable references with sufficient motivation to combine those references, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in making the claimed invention as a whole. Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d
`
`at 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To possess the requisite “reasonable expectation of
`
`success” in combining all the references to make the claimed invention as a whole,
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art must be motivated to do more than merely
`
`vary all parameters with no indication of critical parameters or try all of a number
`
`of possible choices with no direction until successful. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Instead, the prior art must provide
`
`more than a mere “general guidance” that seems to be a “promising field of
`
`experimentation.” Id.
`
`
`
`The obviousness inquiry must exclude hindsight and avoid reading into the
`
`prior art the patent’s teachings. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966).
`
`“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit,
`
`when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that
`
`knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein
`
`that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.” W.L. Gore &
`
`Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Invoking
`
`design choice to add three to four distinct components to a system evidences
`
`impermissible hindsight, not obviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 36.
`
`B.
`
`Brown Does Not Disclose if the user identities are able to form the
`group, [forming / forms] the group and [facilitating / facilitates]
`sending the communications that are not censored from the first
`participator computer to the second participator computer
`
`Claims 189 and 465 require the limitations if the user identities are able to
`
`form the group, [forming / forms] the group and [facilitating / facilitates] sending
`
`the communications that are not censored from the first participator computer to
`
`the second participator computer. Brown does not disclose this limitation.
`
`Submitting less than a page of explanation, Petitioner fails to show how Brown
`
`alone discloses this limitation.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`Brown Does Not Disclose the Required Condition if the user
`identities are able to form the group
`
`
`
`1.
`
`To show a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to obviousness,
`
`Petitioner must account for each term of the claim limitation and cannot read out
`
`any required conditions or limitations. While Brown discloses sending
`
`communications within a BBS system, Brown does not disclose forming a
`
`group…if the user identities are able to form the group. Instead, Petitioner relies
`
`on its own conclusion that the “Sysop Tools and chat and BBS client
`
`applications…allow users with Sysop privileges to form groups in which members
`
`exchange messages.” This conclusory statement goes unexplained, despite
`
`necessitating the listing of nine citations to meet the limitation. Petitioner makes
`
`no attempt to discuss whether those nine citations need to be taken together or
`
`separately, or how those nine citations should be interpreted to meet the claimed
`
`limitation. Patent Owner respectfully submits that none of Petitioner’s cited
`
`support and conclusory statement could reasonably be interpreted to disclose the
`
`prerequisite to forming the group: that the user identities must be able to form the
`
`group. Patent Owner notes that it is not the Board’s job to find teachings or make
`
`obviousness arguments for the Petitioner, and the Board should decline to do so
`
`here. GN Resound A/S v. Oticon A/S, IPR2015-00103, Paper 13 at 6 (June 18,
`
`2015) (Petitioner should not expect the Board to search through cited portions of
`
`references to map prior art disclosure with claim elements, or to infer or create
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`arguments from the record.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`While Petitioner fails to articulate how each of the numerous citations apply
`
`to the claimed elements, Patent Owner gleans the following from the citations.
`
`The Sysop Tools permit system administrators, i.e. Sysops, to control a wide range
`
`of features depending on which privileges the Author of the software application
`
`assigned to the Sysop. Petitioner cites to a number of privileges assigned typically
`
`to a Sysop: to control access rights (Ex. 1012 at 10:31-35); to delete messages
`
`(10:54-65); to create, delete, and modify nodes having properties which define
`
`content objects (14:41-51). In one example of the latter, a Sysop designates
`
`members as family members and creates a BBS folder and designates family
`
`members to privately correspond within the BBS folder. (Ex. 1012 at 15:27-37.)
`
`Configuring a family by using Sysop Tools to designate family members
`
`does not disclose the claimed prerequisite. In Brown, the alleged group formation
`
`is based on the actions of the Sysop, not the user identities. To meet the limitation,
`
`the formation of the group must be predicated on the condition expressly required
`
`by the claim: that existing user identities possess certain capabilities that allow
`
`them to form a group including those user identities. Petitioner sidesteps this
`
`express condition. Instead, Petitioner alleges that Brown configures folders and
`
`string cites to nine portions of the reference with no accompanying explanation.
`
`In another unexplained citation, Petitioner relies on a system administrator
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`creating an area and then giving an already-existing group rights to access the area.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`(Ex. 1012 at 65-67.) Again, Brown’s reconfiguring of access values of an already-
`
`existing group fails to meet the limitation of creating a group. Moreover, Brown’s
`
`Sysop modifications do not amount to creating a group only upon the precondition
`
`that the user identities, which will form the group, are determined to have the
`
`ability to form the group.
`
`Again missing the mark, Petitioner fails to explain how this limitation is met
`
`by allowing a Sysop to add a group by editing the properties of an existing group.
`
`(Ex. 1012 at 31:1-21.) But this example represents the distinction between Brown
`
`and the claimed invention: Brown requires a Sysop to add a group. That is, if it is
`
`even possible to glean group formation from this Sysop-driven option, such an
`
`addition requires Sysop configuration rather than the condition that user identities
`
`are able to form the group, as required by the claim limitation. Accordingly, the
`
`Board should deny institution on all grounds because Brown fails to disclose if the
`
`user identities are able to form the group, [forming / forms] the group and
`
`[facilitating / facilitates] sending the communications that are not censored from
`
`the first participator computer to the second participator computer, as required by
`
`the claims.
`
`2.
`
`Joining a Chat Room Does Not Disclose Forming a Group
`
`As a fallback from the Sysop and its configuration tools, Petitioner alleges
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`that Brown discloses that groups are formed by virtue of joining a chat room or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`BBS folder. But the cited section discusses only entering and joining an existing
`
`group, as Brown states:
`
`For example, an end user may enter a “sports” Chat room to join an
`
`interactive conversation on sports-related topics.
`
`(Ex. 1012 at 9:50-52.) This section, and the rest of the surrounding paragraph,
`
`merely states that users can enter/exit rooms and join/leave conversations. Nothing
`
`about this citation even suggests forming, i.e. creating, groups or predicating the
`
`formation of a group on the condition that user identities themselves possess the
`
`ability to form the group.
`
`
`
`For at least this additional reason, the Board should deny institution on all
`
`grounds.
`
`3.
`
`The Sociable Web Paper Does Not Save the Petition
`
`
`
`To address the limitation, if the user identities are able to form the group,
`
`[forming / forms] the group and [facilitating / facilitates] sending the
`
`communications that are not censored from the first participator computer to the
`
`second participator computer, Petitioner does not rely on a combination with the
`
`Sociable Web paper, nor does Petitioner depend on inherency, a secondary
`
`reference, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner’s scant arguments and unexplained citations fail to address the required
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`conditions: to explain how joining or modifying an existing group constitutes
`
`forming a group, and how all of the piecemeal sections of Brown should fit
`
`together to meet the claimed limitation. Accordingly, Claims 189 and 465 are not
`
`obvious for at least the reason that Brown and the Sociable Web paper fail to
`
`disclose or suggest if the user identities are able to form the group, [forming /
`
`forms] the group and [facilitating / facilitates] sending the communications that
`
`are not censored from the first participator computer to the second participator
`
`computer, as required by the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Petition should be denied institution because there is not a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will succeed on any of its allegations of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny institution of Claims 189 and 465.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated April 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`Shahar Harel (Reg. No. 73,203)
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: sharel@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the portions of the above-captioned
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE has 3,110 words in
`
`compliance with the 14,000 word limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24. This word
`
`count was prepared using Microsoft Word 2010.
`
`Dated April 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00622
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4) & 42.105(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`A copy of PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE has been
`
`served on Petitioner at the correspondence of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`By Email:
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`
`
`
`
`
`By Email:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`By Email:
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`
`
`
`Dated April 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
