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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`TITLE: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................ 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 4
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4
`E.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 5
`Payment of Fees - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................ 5
`II.
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 and
`42.108 ............................................................................................................. 5
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 5
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 6
`Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............. 6
`C.
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .................................... 7
`A.
`“token” .................................................................................................. 7
`B.
`“pointer” ............................................................................................... 8
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ..................................................... 9
`A.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art .................... 10
`1.
`Brief Overview of Roseman (Ex. 1003) .................................. 10
`2.
`Brief Overview of Rissanen (Ex. 1004) ................................... 13
`3.
`Brief Overview of Vetter (Ex. 1005) ....................................... 14
`4.
`Brief Overview of Pike (Ex. 1006) .......................................... 15
`5.
`Brief Overview of Lichty (Ex. 1007) ....................................... 16
`B. Ground 1: Claims 203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487 and 492
`Are Obvious Over Roseman, Rissanen, Vetter, Pike, and Lichty ..... 16
`2.
`Intermediate Dependent Claim 202 (first user identity is
`censored from the sending of data presenting the video) ........ 51
`Claim 203 (two client software alternatives) ........................... 52
`‐i‐
`
`3.
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Intermediate Dependent Claim 214 (first user identity is
`censored from the sending of data presenting the graphic) ..... 58
`Claims 209, 215 and 221 (two client software
`alternatives) .............................................................................. 61
`Claim 465 (Apparatus Corresponding to Claim 189) .............. 62
`Intermediate Dependent Claims 476, 481, 486 and 491
`(the data presents the video, audio, graphic and
`multimedia) .............................................................................. 65
`10. Claims 477, 482, 487 and 492 (two client software
`alternatives) .............................................................................. 67
`VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 68
`
`
`7.
`
`8.
`9.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐ii‐
`
`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01156 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 2
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01157 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 3
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01158 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 3
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01159 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 2
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00622 (PTAB January 7, 2017) .................................................... 3
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00624 (PTAB January 7, 2017) .................................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01067 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01141 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2016-01155 (PTAB June 3, 2016) ......................................................... 2
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00603 (PTAB January 7, 2017) .................................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00605 (PTAB January 7, 2017) .................................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00606 (PTAB January 9, 2017) .................................................... 3
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐iii‐
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR, pending .............................................................. 2
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01729-YGR ............................................................................. 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................... 13, 14, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 6, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................. 1, 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
` 
`
`‐iv‐
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐v‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`Ex. No
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 to Daniel L. Marks
`
`1002 Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,608,636 to Robert D. Roseman
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`EP 0621532 A1 to Eugene Rissanen, published on April 13, 1994
`
`Ronald J. Vetter, Videoconferencing on the Internet, Computer, IEEE
`Computer Society, Vol. 28, No. 1, at pp.77-79 (Jan. 1995)
`
`Excerpts from Mary Ann Pike et al., Using Mosaic (1994)
`
`Excerpts from Tom Lichty, The Official America Online for Macintosh
`Membership Kit & Tour Guide (2d ed. 1994)
`
`Tim Berners-Lee et al., Request for Comments (RFC) 1738, Uniform
`Resource Locators (URL), Dec. 1994
`
`James Coates, A Mailbox in Cyberspace Brings World to Your PC,
`Chicago Tribune, Mar. 1995
`
`1010 Date-stamped excerpts from Mary Ann Pike et al., Using Mosaic
`(1994)
`
`1011 Date-stamped excerpts from Tom Lichty, The Official America Online
`for Macintosh Membership Kit & Tour Guide (2d ed. 1994)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐vi‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Facebook, Inc. respectfully submits the following Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487 and 492 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,694,657 (Ex. 1001) (“’657 patent”).
`
`Facebook filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’657 patent
`
`challenging claims 189, 334, 342, 348, 465, 580, 584 and 592 in IPR2016-01159
`
`(“Earlier IPR”). On October 20, 2016, more than four months after Petitioner’s §
`
`315(b) bar date passed, Patent Owner served its infringement contentions on
`
`Facebook, identifying for the first time which of the 671 claims of the ’657 patent
`
`it accused Facebook 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”)1, and concurrently moves to join this
`
`Petition with the Earlier IPR. See Paper 2. The additional eight claims challenged
`
`in this Petition depend from claims on which trial is already instituted, and contain
`
`only minor dependent claim limitations that are disclosed and obvious in view of
`
`the same prior art disclosures already at issue in the Earlier IPR.
`
`1 The Petition also addresses independent claims 189 and 465 because the Petition
`
`Claims depend from these claims. Trial has already been instituted with respect to
`
`claims 189 and 465 in the Earlier IPR proceeding.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐1‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`The Petitioner, Facebook, Inc. (“Petitioner”), is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`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 IPR proceedings:
`
` Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01159
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging the ’657 Patent);
`
` 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 IPR2016-01156
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,458,245 (“the ’245
`
`Patent”));
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐2‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
` 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);
`
` Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2016-01158
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2016) (challenging related U.S. Patent No. 8,473,552 (“’552
`
`Patent”);
`
` Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2017-
`
`00603 (PTAB January 7, 2017) (challenging related ’552 Patent);
`
` Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2017-00622
`
`(PTAB January 7, 2017) (challenging the ’657 Patent);
`
` Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2017-
`
`00606 (PTAB January 9, 2017) (challenging the ’657 Patent);
`
` Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2017-00624
`
`(PTAB January 7, 2017) (challenging ’356 Patent); and
`
` Microsoft Corporation v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2017-
`
`00605 (PTAB January 7, 2017) (challenging ’356 Patent).
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐3‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`The ’245 Patent is also the subject of a concurrently filed petition for inter
`
`
`partes review (“the ’245 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
`
`inter partes review and join the ’245 Petition with pending proceeding IPR2016-
`
`01141.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`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
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`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
`T: (703) 456-8668
`F: (703) 456-8100
`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
`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 7131, Chicago, IL 60680. The
` 
`‐4‐
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`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..
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition requests review of eight (8) 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 (for up to 20 claims), and a post-
`
`institution fee of $14,000 (for up to 15 claims). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). This
`
`Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`The Petitioner certifies that the ’657 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review on the ground identified in the present Petition. While the
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’657 patent
`
`more than one year before the date this Petition was 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).
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐5‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Because this Petition is accompanied by a request for joinder (Paper 2), it complies
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`The Petitioner requests that the Board initiate inter partes review of claims
`
`203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487 and 492 on the following ground:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`203, 209, 215,
`221, 477, 482,
`487 and 492
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Roseman in view of Rissanen and
`Vetter, in further view of Pike and Lichty, under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Part V below provides a detailed explanation as to why the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable based on the grounds identified above. The Petitioner has
`
`also submitted an accompanying Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (“Lavian
`
`Decl.”) (Exhibit 1002), a technical expert with more than two decades of relevant
`
`experience, including extensive experience in computer programming and software
`
`development. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 2-9, Ex. A.)
`
`C. Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`The Board should institute inter partes review of claims 203, 209, 215, 221,
`
`477, 482, 487 and 492 because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing. Each limitation of each challenged claim is disclosed and/or suggested
`
`by the prior art, as explained in detail in Part V below.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐6‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100. Set forth below are key terms from the ’245 Patent claims and their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation.2
`
`“token”
`
`A.
`Each independent claim addressed in this Petition recites a database that
`
`provides a “repository of tokens” used to perform user authentication. Claim 189,
`
`for example, recites a “database which serves as a repository of tokens for other
`
`programs to access.” The patent describes a “token” as follows:
`
`With regard to the arbitrating of the controller computer 3 is directed
`by the controller computer program 2 to use “identity tokens”, which
`are pieces of information associated with user identity. The pieces of
`information are stored in memory 11 in a control computer database,
`along with personal information about the user, such as the user’s age.
`
`
`2 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
`
`IPR2016-01159. Facebook also maintains the positions it has set forth in other
`
`pending inter partes review proceedings regarding 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.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐7‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`(’657, 7:49-54 (underlining added).) The specification goes on to describe several
`
`exemplary uses for tokens. (’657, e.g., 7:60-61, 8:2-4, 8:7-9.)
`
`Based on the definitional language in the written description, the term
`
`“token” should be interpreted as a “piece of information associated with user
`
`identity.” (Lavian Decl. ¶¶ 17, 18.)
`
`“pointer”
`
`B.
`The term “pointer” appears in independent claims 189 and 465. “Pointers”
`
`are well‐known in computer science and exist at all levels of computer system
`
`design. (Lavian Decl. ¶ 19.) To persons of ordinary skill in the art, a “pointer” is a
`
`piece of information that “points to,” or references, other information. (Id.)
`
`The written description provides only the following mention of pointers,
`
`which identifies a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) as an example of a pointer:
`
`The present invention comprehends communicating all electrically
`communicable multimedia information as Message 8, by such means
`as pointers, for example, URLs. URLs can point to pre-stored audio
`and video communications, which the Controller Computer 3 can
`fetch and communicate to the Participator Computers 5.
`
`(’657, 5:11-16.) Based on this description, the term “pointer” should be construed
`
`as a “piece of information that points to or references other information.”
`
`(Lavian Decl. ¶¶ 19, 20.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐8‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 203, 209, 215, 221, 477, 482, 487 and 492 would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`203, 209,
`215, 221,
`477, 482,
`487 and
`492
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Roseman in view of Rissanen and
`Vetter, in further view of Pike and Lichty,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`The Petitioner notes that although Ground 1 cites five prior art references,
`
`Roseman is the base reference that discloses the majority of the limitations. The
`
`other references relate to minor claim features that, as shown below, were within
`
`the general knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art as of April 1996.3 For
`
`example, Rissanen is cited to show that the tokens in Roseman could be stored in a
`
`“database,” Vetter to show that Roseman could have been adapted to communicate
`
`over the “Internet,” Pike to show that Roseman could have used “URLs,” and
`
`Lichty to show basic and known features of America Online chat rooms. These
`
`3 As explained by Dr. Lavian, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of April 1996
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science (or equivalent degree or experience) with practical experience or
`
`coursework in the design or development of systems for network-based
`
`communication between computer systems. (Lavian Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 13.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐9‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`details were so commonplace and known that additional prior art references were
`
`arguably not required to show them. Nevertheless, the Petitioner is mindful of the
`
`Board’s desire for IPR petitioners to avoid presentation of potentially redundant
`
`grounds, and as such, the Petitioner has presented a single obviousness ground
`
`rather than present multiple alternative grounds with alternative combinations of
`
`these references.
`
`The Petitioner also notes that the ’657 patent contains 671 separate claims –
`
`an enormous number, many of them reciting substantially the same or identical
`
`claim language. In order to best conserve the resources of the Board, the Petitioner
`
`has chosen to challenge only a handful of claims, which appear to be representative
`
`of other claims. The Petitioner’s choice to challenge only a handful of claims is
`
`not a concession that any of the other claims recite inventive subject matter.
`
`A. Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
`1.
`Brief Overview of Roseman (Ex. 1003)
`Roseman, entitled “Server Based Virtual Conferencing,” discloses a system
`
`for creating a virtual conference room that allows participants to collaborate in real
`
`time over a computer network. Roseman qualifies as prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA) because it is a patent issuing from an application filed
`
`on May 13, 1992, before the filing of the earliest application to which the patent
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐10‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`could claim priority (April 1, 1996). This Petition cites Roseman for the majority
`
`of the limitations in the challenged claims.
`
`The conferencing system in Roseman “allows multiple persons, at different
`
`locations, to hold a conference, by providing many of the conveniences which the
`
`participants would have if present together in the same physical room.” (Roseman,
`
`1:19-23.) Roseman describes “a virtual conferencing system which allows
`
`multiple persons to view, and also manipulate, a common video display, which is
`
`simultaneously displayed at their different locations.” (Roseman, 1:28-31.) Each
`
`participant has its own “local computer.” (Roseman, 1:34-35; see also id., 2:64-
`
`65.) “When a conference is established, the local computers become connected to
`
`a host computer, via commercially available Local Area Networks (LANs) and
`
`Wide Area Networks (WANs).” (Roseman, 1:36-41; see also id., 3:14-19.)
`
`A user in Roseman creates a virtual conference room by clicking an
`
`appropriate icon through a user interface, identifying the participants of the
`
`conference and providing other information such as the rules that govern the
`
`meeting. (Roseman, 3:22-56.) Once the parameters of the conference are
`
`established, the host computer “creates the conference room. The host does this by
`
`creating a common image, such as that shown in FIG. 9. The common image
`
`includes a picture of each invitee, a ‘table,’ and the room decor.” (Roseman, 7:30-
`
`34.) An example of the virtual conference room is shown in Figure 9 below:
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐11‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`(Roseman, Fig. 9.)
`
`Once inside the conference room, “[o]bjects (documents) can be shared in
`
`the conference room by placing them on the table. This might be done by dragging
`
`an icon . . . onto the table.” (Roseman, 11:18-22.) The user can also click on the
`
`picture of another participant to engage in a private voice conversation, or drag a
`
`textual note onto the picture of another participant to send a private text message.
`
`(Roseman, 9:16-31.) Other communication features are described below.
`
`Roseman also discloses a security mechanism in which users must be invited
`
`and have an appropriate “key” to enter the conference room. (Roseman, e.g., 9:34-
`
`55, 10:61-64 (“To open a door with a key, the user drops the key onto the door
`
`lock. If the key is valid and the user has the authority to use the key, the door
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐12‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`opens and the user is admitted to the room.”).) Roseman also discloses a database
`
`that stores the keys for the conference room. (Roseman, 9:49-50.) These
`
`conference room “keys,” as explained below, correspond to the “tokens” recited in
`
`the independent claims. More details about Roseman are set forth below.
`
`Brief Overview of Rissanen (Ex. 1004)
`
`2.
`Each independent claim recites “a database which serves as a repository
`
`of tokens for other programs to access.” As noted above, the “keys” in Roseman
`
`disclose the claimed “tokens,” and those keys are stored on the central host
`
`computer. But Roseman does not use the word “database” to describe the storage
`
`of keys by the host. In the event it is argued that Roseman fails to disclose a
`
`“database” that stores the keys, as recited by the claims, this requirement would
`
`have been trivially obvious over Rissanen.
`
`Rissanen, entitled “Password Verification System,” discloses a technique for
`
`user authentication using passwords stored in a database. Rissanen qualifies as
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`This Petition cites Rissanen as an alternative basis to teach “a database
`
`which serves as a repository of tokens for other programs to access,” in the
`
`event it is argued that Roseman alone does not disclose this limitation. Rissanen
`
`discloses storing user passwords in a database, and subsequently using those stored
`
`passwords to verify user identity when users subsequently attempt to log-on.
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐13‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`(Rissanen, Ex. 1004, 1:21-28.) Rissanen also discloses that user login and
`
`password information may be stored in a database. (Rissanen, 2:22-29.) Although
`
`Rissanen also describes using spoken voice passwords, this Petition cites it for its
`
`more pedestrian teachings relating to database storage of passwords of any form.
`
`As explained in detail below, the user and password information in the
`
`database in Rissanen is analogous to the conference room “keys” in Roseman. It
`
`would have been obvious to combine Roseman and Rissanen to produce the virtual
`
`conferencing system of Roseman in which the conference room keys are stored in
`
`a database serving as a repository of tokens (keys) for other programs to access, as
`
`taught in Rissanen. (Lavian Decl. ¶¶ 33, 51-53.)
`
`Brief Overview of Vetter (Ex. 1005)
`
`3.
`Each independent claim also recites the step of sending and/or receiving
`
`communications “via the Internet.” Roseman discloses using “commercially
`
`available” Wide Area Networks (WANs) to communicate with participator
`
`computers, but does not specifically the Internet. (Roseman, 1:37-41; see also id.,
`
`3:14-19.) Vetter, entitled “Videoconferencing on the Internet,” discloses software
`
`tools for enabling videoconferencing over the Internet. Vetter qualifies as prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This Petition cites Vetter for the straightforward
`
`proposition that simply adding “the Internet” to an existing computer-based
`
`conferencing products does not render it non-obvious over the prior art. Vetter
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐14‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`confirms that the Internet was already being used with conferencing systems such
`
`as Roseman to enable real-time communication. (Vetter, Ex. 1005, at p. 77.)
`
`Brief Overview of Pike (Ex. 1006)
`
`4.
`Pike, entitled Using Mosaic, is a book describing NCSA Mosaic, one of the
`
`early browsers for accessing the World Wide Web. (Pike, Ex. 1006, at 1-2.) This
`
`Petition cites Pike in connection with claims that recite a “pointer” or “URL.”
`
`As explained below, Roseman discloses a pointer in the form of a clickable
`
`icon that, when clicked by a meeting participant, presents a document, message or
`
`other content to the user. (Roseman, Ex. 1003, e.g., 14:53-57 & 14:59-62 (icon
`
`representing document placed on table), 9:28-31 (icon representing private
`
`message).) Roseman does not expressly disclose a URL.
`
`URLs are used today to identify hundreds of millions of resources located on
`
`the Internet, and were clearly not an invention of the ’657 patent. Pike, which was
`
`published in 1994, provides an introductory section describing basic Internet
`
`concepts such as URLs. (Pike, Ex. 1006, at 38-39.) Pike explains that “[a] URL is
`
`a complete description of an item, including the location of the item that you want
`
`to retrieve.” (Id. at 38 (italics in original).) “The location of the item can range
`
`from a file on your local disk to a file on an Internet site halfway around the
`
`world.” (Id.) Pike further explains that a URL can identify any resource on the
`
`Internet, and “is not limited to describing the location of WWW [World Wide
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐15‐
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`Web] files.” (Id.) Pike goes onto describe the familiar URL syntax and how URLs
`
`identify documents that can be retrieved from other computers. (Id. at 38-39.) As
`
`demonstrated below, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to adapt known URL techniques to Roseman. (Lavian Decl. ¶¶ 91-94.)
`
`Brief Overview of Lich