Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owners
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,995,433
`(PETITION 2 OF 2 – CLAIMS 9-12, 14-17, 25, 26)
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 3
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4
`E.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 4
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................. 4
`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 ................................................ 5
`IV. Technology Background Relevant to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art ................................................................................................................... 6
`The ’433 Patent ............................................................................................... 7
`V.
`VI. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .................................... 9
`A.
`“instant voice messaging application” ................................................. 9
`B.
`“client platform system” ..................................................................... 13
`VII. Claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 Are Unpatentable ....................................... 15
`A.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art .................... 15
`
`Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103) .............................................. 15
`
`Overview of Greenlaw (Ex. 1110) ........................................... 20
`
`Overview of Newton (Ex. 1106) .............................................. 22
`B. Ground 1: Claims 9, 12, 14, 17, 25-26 Are Obvious Over
`Zydney ................................................................................................ 23
`
`Claim 9 (Independent) ............................................................. 23
`(a)
`“A system, comprising:” (Preamble, Claim 9) .............. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(ii)
`
`“an instant voice messaging application
`comprising:” (Claim 9[a]) ............................................. 23
`(i)
`“a client platform system for generating an
`instant voice message;” (Claim 9[a1])” .............. 25
`“a messaging system for transmitting the
`voice instant message over a packet-
`switched network; and” (Claim 9[a2]) ................ 28
`“wherein the instant voice message application
`attaches one or more files to the instant voice
`message.” (Claim 9[b]) .................................................. 32
`Claim 12 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`encrypts the instant voice message.” ....................................... 36
`Claim 14 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`invokes a document handler to create a link between the
`instant voice message and the one or more files.” ................... 38
`Claim 17 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, further comprising an instant voice messaging server
`receiving the instant voice message and an indication of
`one or more intended recipients of the instant voice
`message.” ................................................................................. 43
`(a)
`“an instant voice messaging server receiving the
`instant voice message…” ............................................... 43
`“an instant voice messaging server receiving … an
`indication of one or more intended recipients of the
`instant voice message.” .................................................. 45
`Claim 25 (Dependent): “The system of claim 17 wherein
`the instant voice messaging server determines availability
`of the one or more intended recipients for receipt of the
`instant voice message.” ............................................................ 46
`
`(b)
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 26 (Dependent): “The system of claim 25, wherein
`the instant voice messaging server: delivers the instant
`voice message to the one or more intended recipients
`who are determined to be currently available; stores the
`instant voice message for the one or more intended
`recipients who are not currently available; and delivers
`the instant voice message to the one or more intended
`recipients who are not currently available when the
`instant voice messaging server determines that the not
`currently available one or more intended recipients
`become available.” ................................................................... 47
`(a)
`“the instant voice messaging server: delivers the
`instant voice message to the one or more intended
`recipients who are determined to be currently
`available;” ...................................................................... 48
`“the instant voice messaging server… stores the
`instant voice message for the one or more intended
`recipients who are not currently available;” .................. 48
`“the instant voice messaging server… delivers the
`instant voice message to the one or more intended
`recipients who are not currently available when the
`instant voice messaging server determines that the
`not currently available one or more intended
`recipients become available.” ........................................ 49
`C. Ground 2: Claims 11, 15, 16 Are Obvious Over Zydney +
`Greenlaw ............................................................................................ 50
`
`Claim 11 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays one or more controls for audibly playing the
`instant voice message.” ............................................................ 50
`Claim 15 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays the attachment.” ......................................................... 57
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 16 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays one or more controls for performing at least one
`of reviewing, re-recording or deleting the instant voice
`message.” ................................................................................. 58
`D. Ground 3: Claim 10 Is Obvious Over Zydney + Newton .................. 59
`
`Claim 10 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the packet-switched network comprises a
`WiFi network.” ......................................................................... 59
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`Ex. No.
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 to Michael J. Rojas
`1102 Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`1103
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (“Zydney”) (with added line numbers)
`1104 U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004)
`
`1105
`
`Excerpts from Margaret Levine Young, Internet: The Complete
`Reference (2d ed. 2002)
`
`1106
`
`Excerpts from Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (2002)
`(“Newton”) (dated library copy)
`1107 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October 16,
`2000, issued June 29, 2004)
`1108 U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 to David Morley Clark et al. (filed Oct.
`31, 2000, issued April 20, 2004)
`
`1109
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997)
`
`Excerpts from Raymond Greenlaw et al., Introduction to the Internet
`for Engineers (1999) (“Greenlaw”)
`
`Excerpts of Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed
`on March 10, 2017 in Case No. 16-cv-00642 (E.D. Tex.), including
`Exhibit A
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (as-published version without added line numbers)
`
`1113
`
`Library and date-stamped copy of excerpts from Raymond Greenlaw
`et al., Introduction to the Internet for Engineers (1999)
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`This is a petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (Ex. 1101) (“’433 patent”).
`
`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)
`Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc. (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-
`
`interest to this inter partes review petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’433 patent is the subject of a pending request for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2017-00225) filed by Apple Inc., on November 14, 2016. The Petitioners herein
`
`are not parties to IPR2017-00225 and were not involved in the preparation of that
`
`petition. An institution decision is expected for IPR2017-00225 by June 5, 2017.
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, the Petitioners are filing a second
`
`petition for inter partes review, to address claims not covered by the present Petition.
`
`More specifically, the present Petition addresses claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26, and
`
`the other concurrently-filed petition addresses claims 1-8. The Petitioners filed their
`
`challenges against these claims in two separate petitions to allow each petition to
`
`provide a more complete and thorough treatment of each claim.
`
`The ’433 patent is also the subject of two pending litigations involving the
`
`Petitioners: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00728-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex. Filed July 5, 2016) and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00645-JRG (E.D. Tex. Filed June 14, 2016), which have been
`
`consolidated for pretrial purposes with Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The Petitioners are also aware of the following additional pending litigations
`
`involving the ’433 patent: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Tencent America LLC et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00694-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Blackberry
`
`Corporation et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et
`
`al. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00696-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.
`
`v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00722-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`BeeTalk Private Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`et al. v. Green Tomato Limited, Case No. 2:16-cv-00731-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00732-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00777-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, Case No.
`
`2:16-cv-00892-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. HTC America, Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00989-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kyocera America,
`
`Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00990-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00993-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00994-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00214-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00224-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00231-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. KIK Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00347-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00349-JRG (E.D. Tex.); and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Tencent America LLC et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00577-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Although the Petitioners are not parties
`
`to these other litigations, because they involve allegations of infringement of the
`
`’433 patent, they may be impacted by a decision by the Board in this IPR proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`FB_Uniloc2_433_PTAB_IPR@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`FB_Uniloc2_433_PTAB_IPR@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8668
`Fax: (703) 456-8100
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice pending)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`D.
`Service Information
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’433 patent, UNILOC USA INC., Legacy Town Center, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite
`
`380, Plano TX 75024. The Petitioners consent to electronic service at the addresses
`
`provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`E.
`Power of Attorney
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`This Petition requests review of ten (10) claims. A payment of $23,000 is
`
`submitted herewith, 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). This Petition meets the fee
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`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 Petitioners certify that the ’433 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that the Petitioners are not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`The Petitioners respectfully request that the Board initiate inter partes review
`
`of claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103), under § 103(a)
`
`Claims
`9, 12, 14,
`17, 25, 26
`11, 15, 16 Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of
`Greenlaw (Ex. 1010), under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Newton
`(Ex. 1106), under § 103(a)
`
`10
`
`Part VII below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`on the grounds identified above. These references were not cited during the original
`
`prosecution of the ’433 patent, and were not cited in the separate IPR petition filed
`
`by Apple Inc. (IPR2017-00225). Submitted with the Petition is the Declaration of
`
`Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1102) (“Lavian”), a technical expert with decades of
`
`relevant technical experience. (Lavian, ¶¶ 1-10, Ex. A.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`IN THE ART
`As explained by Dr. Lavian, a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes
`
`of the ’433 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of
`
`experience in development and programming relating to network communication
`
`systems (or equivalent degree or experience). (Lavian, ¶¶ 13-15.)
`
`As discussed in more detail below, the ’433 patent relates generally to instant
`
`messaging systems. The term “instant messaging” or “IM” generally refers to a
`
`technology that allows two or more people to exchange information with other users,
`
`including text, voice data, and/or files. (Id., ¶ 30.)
`
`Instant messaging technologies date back to at least the 1960s with the MIT
`
`“Interconsole Messages” system, which allowed users to exchange textual messages
`
`over a network. (Id., ¶ 32.) Through the 1980s and 1990s, companies such as
`
`CompuServe, Commodore, and America Online (AOL), among others, released
`
`instant messaging solutions to the public, some of which became immensely
`
`popular. (Id., ¶¶ 33-36.) For example, by 2002, AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), the
`
`instant messaging service offered by AOL, had more than 100 million registered
`
`users. (Id., ¶ 37.)
`
`The ’433 patent also acknowledges that instant messaging solutions were
`
`known in the art. The Background section of the patent explains that known instant
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`messaging (“IM”) systems generally included client devices, IM software installed
`
`on those client devices, and IM servers. (’433, 2:35-39.) IM systems communicated
`
`over a packet-switched network, such as the Internet. (Id., 1:38-39, 2:35-39.) The
`
`IM server maintained a list of users that were currently “online” and able to receive
`
`messages and presented this list to the users via the instant messaging software. (Id.,
`
`2:39-42; Lavian, ¶ 40.) A user could select one or more recipients and send them a
`
`message. (’433, 2:43-45; Lavian, ¶¶ 30, 41, 42.) The IM server would transmit the
`
`message to the recipients and the message would be displayed to the recipients by
`
`the IM software. (’433, 2:45-47.)
`
`Instant messaging services typically required that the user have software (an
`
`IM client) that provides a user interface allowing a user to send messages to one or
`
`more recipients. The messages would typically be communicated to a server, which
`
`would either deliver the message to the recipients or store them at the server if the
`
`recipient was not currently available. (Lavian, ¶¶ 30, 41, 42.) IM clients typically
`
`varied in terms of what types of information they could transmit, how they indicate
`
`availability of other users, whether and how they secure the communications, and
`
`other details. (Id., ¶ 31.)
`
`V. THE ’433 PATENT
`The ’433 patent purports to describe a system and method for delivering
`
`instant voice messages over a packet-switched network. (’433, Abstract.) The
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`disclosed system includes a client such as a VoIP telephone or PC computer
`
`“enabled for IP telephony” that is connected to a server and instant voice message
`
`(“IVM”) recipients through a network(s). (Id., 1:44-51, 2:61-3:5, 7:8-26.)
`
`In one embodiment, when a user chooses to send an IVM, the IVM client
`
`displays a “list of one or more IVM recipients.” (Id., 8:2-5.) This recipient list is
`
`provided and stored by an IVM server. (Id.) Once recipients are selected, the user
`
`records a message, such as by using a microphone to record a digitized audio file.
`
`(Id., 8:11-15.) The patent states that one or more files may be attached to the instant
`
`voice message, such as by using a conventional “drag-and-drop” technique. (Id.,
`
`12:28-43, 13:35-40.)
`
`Once the voice message is generated, the client transmits the voice message
`
`to the server for delivery to one or more recipients. (Id., 8:22-30.) After receiving
`
`the IVM, the server transmits the voice message to the one or more recipients. (Id.,
`
`8:30-33.) If the recipient is “available” (currently connected to the IVM server), it
`
`will receive the instant voice message. (Id., 8:36-38.) If a recipient is unavailable
`
`(offline), the server temporarily saves the voice message and transmits it once the
`
`recipient becomes available. (Id., 8:38-43.) The recipient is notified of the new
`
`voice message and can play the audio file. (Id., 8:33-36.) If the message had
`
`attachments, the recipient can also access the attached files. (Id., 13:5-12.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`This Petition addresses claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26. Claim 9 is the sole
`
`challenged independent claim. Claims 11, 12, and 14-17 depend from claim 9.
`
`Claim 25 depends from claim 17, and claim 26 depends from claim 25.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`The constructions below provide the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A.
`“instant voice messaging application”
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of an “instant voice messaging
`
`application” in the context of the claims of the ’433 patent is “hardware and/or
`
`software used for instant voice messaging.” (Lavian, ¶¶ 48-56.)1
`
`The written description of the ’433 patent does not use the word “application”
`
`in any way relevant to the alleged invention. In fact, all instances of the word
`
`“application” in the written description involve irrelevant (for purposes of this
`
`Petition) cross-references to related patent applications. (’433, 1:4-14.)
`
`
`1 The Petitioners do not contend that “instant voice messaging application,” under
`
`its broadest reasonable construction, is a “means-plus-function” claim limitation
`
`subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). The Petitioners reserve their right to argue
`
`that this term is indefinite under the narrower claim construction standards
`
`applicable in litigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`Nevertheless, the term “application” to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`typically refers to computer software for performing a particular function. (Lavian,
`
`¶ 52 (citing Ex. 1109, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997), at 27 (defining
`
`“application” as “[a] program designed to assist in the performance of a specific task,
`
`such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management.”)).) The written
`
`description of the ’433 patent, however, indicates that the term “instant voice
`
`messaging application” should not be limited to just software under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction.
`
`The written description does not identify any particular software program
`
`capable of performing all of the functions associated with the “instant voice
`
`messaging application” recited in the claims. (Lavian, ¶ 53.) To the contrary, it
`
`describes these functions as being performed by an instant voice messaging client,
`
`IVM client 208, which is a “general-purpose programmable computer.” (’433,
`
`12:13-15.) The IVM client 208 contains various boxes labeled with functions
`
`including client platform 302, which contains boxes labeled client engine 304,
`
`document handler 306, file manager 308, audio file creation 312, signal processing
`
`314, encryption/decryption 316, and compression/decompression 316. (Id., 12:19-
`
`23.) The IVM client 208 also contains a box labeled messaging system 320. (Id.,
`
`12:8-13.) Figure 3, an excerpt of which is reproduced below, shows these various
`
`boxes inside IVM client 208.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`The Petitioners note that independent claims 1, 6, and 9 recite that the “instant
`
`voice message application” includes a “client platform system” and a “messaging
`
`system.” But Figure 3 above shows both client platform 302 and messaging system
`
`320 sitting within IVM client 208, and the written description does not identify a
`
`specific software program that contains those two components. Accordingly, the
`
`term “instant voice messaging application” under its broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`construction should not be limited to a software program, but should be interpreted
`
`more broadly to encompass a combination of multiple different software programs
`
`and/or hardware components. (Lavian, ¶ 54.)
`
`This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that independent claims 1 and 6recite
`
`that the claimed instant voice messaging application “displays a list of one or more
`
`potential recipients for the instant voice message.” The written description indicates
`
`that displaying is carried out by a hardware device – display device 216 connected
`
`to IVM client 208. (Id., Fig. 2; 8:2-3 (“The IVM client 208 displays a list of one or
`
`more IVM recipients on its display 216… .”).)2 The written description does not
`
`state that any of the boxes inside IVM client 208, or any software, provide the
`
`claimed display capability.
`
`Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that,
`
`under its broadest reasonable construction, “instant voice messaging application” is
`
`not limited to software and could include hardware such as a general purpose
`
`computer and display device 216. (Lavian, ¶ 56.) Accordingly, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“instant voice messaging application” in the context of the claims of the ’433
`
`patent is “hardware and/or software used for instant voice messaging.”
`
`
`2 All emphasis in quoted text in this Petition has been added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`B.
` “client platform system”
`One of the components of the claimed “instant voice messaging application”
`
`is a “client platform system.” In particular, claims 1 and 9 state that the “instant
`
`voice messaging application” includes “a client platform system for generating an
`
`instant voice message.” As shown below, the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“client platform system” is “hardware and/or software on a client for
`
`generating an instant voice message.”3
`
`The written description does not use the term “client platform system” but
`
`does describe a “client platform 302” whose purpose is “generating an instant voice
`
`message” (’433, 12:9-10). The written description further states that the client
`
`platform 302 “comprises a client engine 304, which controls other components” such
`
`as the document handler, file manager, and encryption/decryption. (Id., 12:19-23.)
`
`The written description does not identify what “client engine 304” actually is, e.g.,
`
`whether it is hardware and/or software. The written description instead provides a
`
`functional description of client engine 304 as performing at least two functions: (1)
`
`
`3 The Petitioners do not contend that “client platform system,” under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction, is a “means-plus-function” claim limitation subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). The Petitioners reserve their right to argue that this
`
`term is indefinite under the claim construction standards applicable in litigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`communicating with the server, and (2) performing operations required to generate
`
`an instant voice message. (Id., 12:26-27, 13:17-30.) Figure 3 similarly shows client
`
`engine 304 as a nondescript box within client platform 302. (Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`Nevertheless, as explained above, the claimed “instant voice messaging
`
`application” is composed of hardware and/or software under its broadest reasonable
`
`construction. Because the claimed “client platform system” is part of the “instant
`
`messaging application” in the challenged claims, the “client platform system” under
`
`its broadest reasonable construction should similarly be defined as hardware and/or
`
`software. Accordingly, the term “client platform system” should be defined under
`
`its broadest reasonable construction as “hardware and/or software on a client for
`
`generating an instant voice message.”
`
`In the co-pending litigation involving the Petitioners, the Patent Owner has
`
`proposed to construe “a client platform system” to mean “the system of the client
`
`engine which controls other components used to generate an instant voice message.”
`
`(Ex. 1111, Ex. A, pp.16-17 (Term 24).) This definition has various flaws and is
`
`inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation. (Lavian, ¶ 61.) To begin
`
`with, this definition incorrectly reverses the relationship between the “client engine”
`
`and the “client platform” by reciting that the “client platform system” is a part of the
`
`“client engine.” But the written description makes clear that the opposite is true –
`
`client engine 304 is part of the client platform 302, not the other way around. (’433,
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`Fig. 3, 12:19-20 (“The client platform 302 comprises a client engine 304, which
`
`controls other components…”).) Second, the claims themselves do not recite a
`
`“client engine,” and the recitation of a “client engine” does not appear to add
`
`anything meaningful to the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. (Lavian, ¶ 61.)
`
`Nevertheless, as explained in the analysis below, the prior art discloses the claimed
`
`“client platform system” even under the Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`VII. CLAIMS 9-12, 14-17, 25, AND 26 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`The challenged claims are unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103), under § 103(a)
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`9, 12, 14,
`17, 25, 26
`11, 15, 16 Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Greenlaw
`(Ex. 1110), under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Newton
`(Ex. 1106), under § 103(a)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`10
`
`This Petition will first provide an overview of each prior art reference.
`
`A. Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
` Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103)
`Zydney is a published PCT application that describes a system for voice
`
`communication that enables a user to send instant voice messages, which Zydney
`
`calls “voice containers.” (Zydney, Ex. 1103, 2:2-3.) The system transmits the voice
`
`containers “instantaneously or stored for later delivery,” depending on whether or
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`not the recipient is currently online. (Id., 1:19-22, 15:8-21.) Zydney qualifies as
`
`prior art vis-à-vis the ’433 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) because
`
`Zydney was published on February 15, 2001, more than one year before the earliest
`
`patent application filing date for the ’433 patent.
`
`The Petitioners also note that the Zydney reference contains page numbers but
`
`does not contain line numbers. Accordingly, for convenience of the Board and ease
`
`of reference, Exhibit 1103 to this Petition contains a copy of Zydney in which line
`
`numbers have been added to the left of each page (beginning on page 1) to facilitate
`
`precise citation to the passages of the reference cited in this Petition. Any citations
`
`to line numbers