Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`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. 7,535,890
`
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,535,890
`
`(PETITION 2 OF 2 – CLAIMS 14, 15, 17-20, 23, 28, 29,
`31-34, 37, 51-54, 57, 62-65, 68)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 6
`V.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .................................... 6
`VI. Claims 14, 15, 17-20, 23, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 51-54, 57, 62-65, and 68
`Are Unpatentable ............................................................................................ 6
`A.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ...................... 7
`
`Overview of Zydney [Ex.1103] ................................................. 7
`
`Overview of Shinder [Ex.1108] ................................................. 9
`
`Overview of Malik [Ex.1115] .................................................. 12
`
`Overview of Appelman [Ex.1104] ........................................... 14
`
`Overview of Martin-Flatin [Ex.1109] ...................................... 18
`B. Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 51, 53, 54,
`and 57 Over Zydney in view of Shinder ............................................ 19
`
`Claim 14 (Independent) ........................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`“An instant voice messaging system for delivering
`instant messages over a plurality of packet-
`switched networks, the system comprising:”
`(Preamble) ...................................................................... 19
`“a client…” (Claim 14[a]) ............................................. 22
`(i)
`“a client connected to a local network,” .............. 22
`(ii)
`“the client selecting one or more external
`recipients connected to an external network
`outside the local network,” .................................. 27
`(iii) “generating an instant voice message
`therefor,” .............................................................. 31
`(iv) “and transmitting the selected recipients and
`the instant voice message therefor over the
`local network and the external network;
`and”...................................................................... 34
`“a server… (Claim 14[b]) .............................................. 38
`(i)
`“a server connected to the external
`network,” ............................................................. 38
`“the server receiving the selected recipients
`and the instant voice message therefor,” ............. 39
`(iii) “and delivering the instant voice message to
`the selected recipients over the external
`network,” ............................................................. 40
`(iv) “the selected recipients being enabled to
`audibly play the instant voice message,” ............ 40
`“and the server temporarily storing the
`instant voice message if a selected recipient
`is unavailable” ..................................................... 41
`(vi) “…and delivering the stored instant voice
`message to the selected recipient once the
`selected recipient becomes available.” ................ 42
`
`(ii)
`
`(v)
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 17: “The instant voice messaging system
`according to claim 14, wherein the external network is
`the Internet.” ............................................................................. 42
`Claim 19: “The instant voice messaging system
`according to claim 14, wherein the server delivers the
`instant voice message to the selected recipients that are
`available.” ................................................................................ 42
`Claim 20: “The instant voice messaging system
`according to claim 14, wherein the client records the
`instant voice message in an audio file, transmits the audio
`file to the server, and the server delivers the audio file to
`the selected recipients, the selected recipients being
`enabled to audibly play the audio file.” ................................... 43
`Claim 23: “The instant voice messaging system
`according to claim 14, wherein…” .......................................... 44
`(a)
`“the client is enabled to attach one or more files to
`the instant voice message” ............................................. 44
`“…and the selected recipients are enabled to store
`or display the one or more attached files.” .................... 44
`Claims 51, 53, 54, 57 ............................................................... 45
`
`C. Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 15, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 37, 62,
`64, 65, and 68 Over Zydney in view of Shinder and Malik ............... 46
`
`Dependent Claim 15: “The instant voice messaging
`system according to claim 14, …” ........................................... 46
`(a)
`“the client further selects one or more local
`recipients connected to the local network and
`transmits the selected local recipients and the
`instant voice message therefor over the local
`network, wherein the system further comprises:”
`(Claim 15[a]) ................................................................. 47
`“a local server connected to the local network,”
`(Claim 15[b]) ................................................................. 49
`
`(b)
`
`(b)
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`“the local server receiving the selected local
`recipients and the instant message therefor from
`the client, and delivering the instant voice message
`to the selected local recipients over the local
`network, the selected local recipients being
`enabled to audibly play the instant voice message.”
`(Claim 15[c]) ................................................................. 53
`Claim 28 (Independent) ........................................................... 53
`
`Claim 29 (Dependent) .............................................................. 61
`
`Claims 31, 33, 34, 37 ............................................................... 65
`
`Claims 62, 64, 65, 68 ............................................................... 66
`
`D. Grounds 3 and 4: Claims 18, 32, 52, and 63 Are Obvious In
`Further view of Appelman and Martin-Flatin .................................... 66
`
`Claim 18: “The instant voice messaging system
`according to claim 14, wherein the client requests a list of
`recipients associated with the client from the server and
`the server transmits the list of recipients to the client for
`selection of the one or more recipients.” ................................. 67
`Claim 32, 52, and 63 (Dependent) ........................................... 78
`
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description of Document
`Ex. No
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 to Michael J. Rojas
`1102 Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`1103
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (with line numbers added) (“Zydney”)
`1104 U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004) (“Appelman”)
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`Excerpts from MARGARET LEVINE YOUNG, INTERNET: THE
`COMPLETE REFERENCE (McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2d ed. 2002)
`
`Excerpts from HARRY NEWTON, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY
`(Telecom Books, 16th ed. 2000) (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
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`Excerpts from DEBRA LITTLEJOHN SHINDER, COMPUTER
`NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2002) (“Shinder”)
`
`J.P. Martin-Flatin, Push vs Pull in Web-Based Network Management,
`Proceedings of the Sixth IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on
`Network Management, 1999 (“Martin-Flatin”)
`
`RANDY J. HINRICHS, INTRANETS: WHAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE? (Sun
`Microsystems Press, 1997)
`
`Excerpts from MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (Microsoft Press,
`3d ed. 1997)
`
`Robert M. Metcalfe et al., Ethernet: Distributed Packet-Switching
`for Local Computer Networks, Communications of the ACM, Vol.
`19, No. 7 (June 1976)
`
`1113
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Ex. No
`
`Description of Document
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (as-published version without added line numbers)
`
`1114
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of excerpts from DEBRA
`LITTLEJOHN SHINDER, COMPUTER NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco
`Press, 2001)
`1115 U.S. Patent No. 7,016,978 to Dale Malik et al. (filed April 29, 2002,
`issued March 21, 2006) (“Malik”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`The Petitioners respectfully submit the following petition for inter partes
`
`review of claims 14, 15, 17-20, 23, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 51-54, 57, 62-65, and 68 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 [Ex.1101] (“’890 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 ’890 patent is the subject of two requests for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2017-00220 and IPR2017-00221) filed by Apple Inc. on November 14, 2016.
`
`The Petitioners herein are not parties to IPR2017-00220 or IPR2017-00221 and
`
`were not involved in the preparation of those petitions. The Board issued a
`
`decision on May 25, 2017 to institute inter partes review based on IPR2017-
`
`00221. The Board denied the institution of inter partes review for IPR2017-00220
`
`on May 25, 2017.
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, the Petitioners are filing a second
`
`petition for inter partes review to address claims not addressed by the present
`
`Petition. More specifically, the present Petition addresses claims 14, 15, 17-20, 23,
`
`28, 29, 31-34, 37, 51-54, 57, 62-65, and 68, while the other concurrently-filed
`
`petition addresses claims 1-6, 9, 40-43, and 46. The Petitioners filed their
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`challenges against these claims in two separate petitions to allow each petition to
`
`provide a more complete and thorough treatment of each claim.
`
`The ’890 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 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 ’890 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.
`
`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-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`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 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.); and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Hike
`
`Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00349-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Although the Petitioners are not
`
`parties to these other litigations, because they involve allegations of infringement
`
`of the ’890 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_890_PTAB_IPR@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`FB_Uniloc2_890_PTAB_IPR@cooley.com
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8668
`Fax: (703) 456-8100
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice pending)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`Service Information
`D.
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’890 patent, Legacy Town Center, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380, Plano, Texas
`
`75024. The Petitioners consent to electronic service at the addresses provided
`
`above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`Power of Attorney
`E.
`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 twenty-four (24) claims. A payment of
`
`$27,400 is submitted herewith, based on a $9,800 request fee and $17,600 post-
`
`institution fee. This Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`If additional fees are due at any time during this proceeding, the Director is hereby
`
`authorized to charge such fees to Cooley LLP’s deposit account number 50-1283.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`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 ’890 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 14, 15, 17-20, 23, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 51-54, 57, 62-65, and 68
`
`based on the following grounds (independent claims shown in bold):
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Claims
`14, 17, 19, 20, 23,
`51, 53, 54, 57
`15, 28, 29, 31, 33,
`34, 37, 62, 64, 65,
`68
`18, 52
`
`32, 63
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex.1103) in view of
`Shinder (Ex.1108), under §103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex.1103) in view of
`Shinder (Ex.1108), in further view of Malik
`(Ex.1115), under §103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex.1103) in view of
`Shinder (Ex.1108), Appelman (Ex.1104) and
`Martin-Flatin (Ex.1109), under §103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex.1103) in view of
`Shinder (Ex.1108), Malik (Ex.1115), Appelman
`(Ex.1104) and Martin-Flatin (Ex.1109), under
`§103(a)
`
`Part VI below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`on these grounds. Submitted herewith is a Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`[Ex.1102] (“Lavian”), a technical expert with decades of relevant technical
`
`experience. (Lavian, ¶¶1-10, Ex.A.)
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The ’890 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. (Lavian, ¶¶31, 32.) A person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes
`
`of the ’890 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). (Id., ¶¶13-15.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`The Petitioners do not at this time contend that any term requires explicit
`
`construction to understand how the prior art applies to the claims.
`
`VI. CLAIMS 14, 15, 17-20, 23, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 51-54, 57, 62-65, AND 68 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`The challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds listed in Part
`
`III.B above. This Petition will first provide an overview of each reference cited in
`
`the grounds listed above, and will then discuss the grounds in detail.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`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, 2:2-3.) Zydney qualifies as prior art to the ’890
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Zydney contains page numbers but not line numbers. Accordingly, the copy
`
`of Zydney in Exhibit 1103 adds line numbers to the left of each page to facilitate
`
`citation. Any citations to line numbers of Zydney, therefore, refer to these added
`
`line numbers. A copy of the original Zydney reference without line numbers is
`
`submitted as Exhibit 1113.
`
`The system of Zydney is generally shown in Figure 1A, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`(Zydney, Fig. 1A (color coding added).)
`
`Three key components of
`
`this system
`
`include
`
`the “SENDER PC
`
`SOFTWARE AGENT” on the left (22), the “RECIPIENT PC SOFTWARE
`
`AGENT” on the right (28), and the “CENTRAL SERVER” in the middle (24).
`
`(Id., 10:19-11:1.) These components communicate over the “INTERNET” as
`
`shown in Figure 1A.
`
`Sending an instant voice message in Zydney is straightforward. A message
`
`sender (originator) “selects one or more intended recipients from a list of names
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`that have been previously entered into the software agent.” (Id., 14:17-19.) The
`
`sender also “digitally records messages for one or more recipients using a
`
`microphone-equipped device and the software agent. The software agent
`
`compresses the voice and stores the file temporarily on the PC if the voice will be
`
`delivered as an entire message.” (Id., 16:1-4; see also id., 20:11-14, 21:11-16.)
`
`The voice message is placed into a “voice container,” which is transmitted (along
`
`with any attachments) to either the central server for delivery or, alternatively,
`
`directly to the recipient. (Id., 12:1, 12:20-23, 16:7-10.)
`
` Overview of Shinder [Ex.1108]
`Shinder, entitled “Computer Networking Essentials,”
`
`is a
`
`textbook
`
`published by Cisco Systems, a well-known supplier of networking equipment.
`
`(Lavian, ¶66.) Shinder purports to provide an introduction to the concepts of
`
`computer networking. (Shinder, Introduction, p.xxii.) Shinder qualifies as prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) (Ex.1114.) This Petition cites
`
`Shinder for claims reciting a “local network” and an “external network.”
`
`As explained in the discussion of Ground 1 below, the claimed “local
`
`network” and “external network” reflect nothing more than an attempt to capture
`
`conventional networking arrangements that were universally known to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. (Lavian, ¶¶68, 74, 152.) As explained in Shinder: “It
`
`seems that in any business facility you enter, there is a computer (or several) on
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`every desktop, all of them linked to an internal LAN, the external Internet, and a
`
`few remote private networks for good measure.” (Shinder, p.19.)1 Ground 1
`
`establishes that it would have been obvious to adapt the instant voice messaging
`
`system of Zydney to operate within a “local network” and an “external network” as
`
`recited in the claims.
`
`Shinder explains that a local area network or “LAN” is a local network
`
`typically limited to a particular geographic area. (Shinder, p.24; id., pp.34, 663.)
`
`One of the most prevalent technologies for connecting computers in a LAN was
`
`“Ethernet.” (Id., p.132 (“The Ethernet architecture is the most popular type of
`
`LAN link today.”).) Ethernet provides a packet-switching network in which data is
`
`broken up and transmitted in units (called “frames”). (Id., p.138.) Ethernet was
`
`invented in the 1970s and is described in the famous article by Robert Metcalfe,
`
`Ethernet: Distributed Packet Switching for Local Computer Networks, published in
`
`July 1976. (Ex.1112.)
`
`It was also well-known that computing devices could communicate over a
`
`wide area network or “WAN” spanning a larger area. (Shinder, pp.37, 182, 690.)
`
`“The best and most familiar example of a WAN is the Internet.” (Id., pp.37, 182.)
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all underlining or boldface type in quotations in this
`
`Petition, and all highlighting in figures, has been added for emphasis.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`It was accordingly well-known that computers could be networked to communicate
`
`over both a local LAN and an external WAN. (Lavian, ¶¶73, 74.) Figure 14-7 of
`
`Shinder (“Figure 14-7”) shows one such exemplary arrangement:
`
`(Shinder, p.463.)
`
`
`
`
`
`This Petition will repeatedly refer to Figure 14-7 because it clearly illustrates
`
`a networked system comprising both a local and an external network. The “local
`
`network” includes three workstations and a server on the bottom row in
`
`communication with each other over a local network. The workstations and the
`
`server are also connected to a “proxy server” shown in the middle that provides a
`
`gateway to an “external network,” i.e., the Internet. (Id.) Shinder explains that
`
`“[c]omputers on
`
`the network communicate with
`
`the proxy, which
`
`then
`
`communicates ‘on their behalf’ with computers on the external network (see Figure
`
`14-7).” (Id.; see also id., p.185 (“A proxy server acts as an intermediary,
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`separating the LAN from the outside network, and it can provide protection by
`
`filtering incoming and outgoing packets.”).)
`
` Overview of Malik [Ex.1115]
`Malik, entitled “Instant Messaging Architecture and System
`
`for
`
`Interoperability and Presence Management,” describes a technique for conducting
`
`IM sessions over a computer network. (Malik, Abstract.) Malik qualifies as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`The Petitioners note that in the instituted Apple IPR (IPR2017-00221), the
`
`Board cited another reference listing Dale Malik as an inventor, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,123,695. The Malik reference cited herein as Exhibit 1115, however, is an
`
`entirely different patent. It has a different listing of inventors, different priority
`
`date, and a specification that offers substantially different disclosures from the
`
`Malik reference cited in IPR2017-00221. For example, the Malik cited herein has
`
`a different Figure 2 and a different discussion of prior art Jabber techniques,
`
`including a discussion of instant message format translation, that was not provided
`
`in the Malik reference cited in the Apple IPR.
`
`This Petition cites Malik in combination with Shinder for Ground 2 and
`
`Ground 4, whose challenged claims recite a “local” and an “external” server
`
`connected, respectively, to a local and external network. Zydney discloses a
`
`central server connected to the Internet but does not appear to recite separate
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`servers on “local” and “external” networks. Malik establishes that it would have
`
`been obvious to implement an instant messaging system through the use of the
`
`claimed “local” and “external” servers.
`
`This Petition relies on a discussion in Malik of a prior art instant messaging
`
`technology known as “Jabber.” (Lavian, ¶77; Malik, 3:61-63.) Figure 2 of Malik
`
`shows an exemplary instant messaging system using Jabber:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Malik, Fig. 2; id., 4:9-11.) Figure 2 shows a number of Jabber clients (200, 205,
`
`and 210), that can communicate with server 215, which Malik calls “Jabber local
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`server 215.” (Id., 4:32-42.)
`
`Jabber local server 215 can also communicate with third party instant
`
`messaging servers, such as server 240 shown in Figure 2 above. “As an example,
`
`when the JABBER client 200 wishes to communicate with a client 245 on a third
`
`party instant messenger server 240, such as AOL Instant Messenger, the JABBER
`
`client 200 first generates a message which is sent to the local JABBER server 215.
`
`The message contains JABBER ID that contains the name of the third party instant
`
`messaging server 240 (e.g., johndoe@aim.goabber.org).” (Id., 5:9-15.) The local
`
`server 215 then passes the message to a translator 225, which in turn translates the
`
`message and then passes it onto the third party IM server. (Id., 5:15-28.)
`
`Malik thus discloses both a local server (e.g. Jabber local server 215) and an
`
`external server (e.g. third party IM server 240), which communicate with each
`
`other to deliver instant messages. As shown below, Malik shows that it would
`
`have been obvious to adapt the system of Zydney to provide for the use of two
`
`such servers to deliver instant voice messages. (Lavian, ¶¶ 318-323, 341-346.)
`
` Overview of Appelman [Ex.1104]
`Appelman, entitled “User Definable On-Line Co-User Lists,” describes an
`
`instant messaging system that keeps track of the logon status of users. (Appelman,
`
`Abstract.) Appelman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`This Petition cites Appelman in connection with Grounds 3 and 4 and, more
`
`specifically, the requirement of certain dependent claims that a “list of recipients”
`
`be provided to a client. Claims 18 and 32, for example, require that “the client
`
`requests a list of recipients associated with the client from the server and the server
`
`transmits the list of recipients to the client….” Claims 52 and 63 (method claims
`
`substantially similar to system claims 18 and 32) recite the same requirement.
`
`Appelman describes a technique for allowing a user to create a list of users
`
`called a “Buddy List,” which records the names of selected other co-users with
`
`whom the user may wish to communicate. (Appelman, 1:53-59, Fig. 3.) Figure 2a
`
`of Appelman, reproduced below, shows an example Buddy List table 32 that
`
`records the screen name of each “buddy” user as well as the connectivity status of
`
`each user (e.g., logged “in” or logged “out”).
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 2a.) In the example above, the user has created two buddy lists (“Home
`
`List” and “Work List”). The buddy list called “Home List” contains the
`
`name/address and logon status for three users: “John Smith,” “Jane Doe” and
`
`“Simon Roe.” (Id., Fig. 2a, 3:41-47.)
`
`When a user logs in, the system displays the buddy list to the user, including
`
`the name and connectivity status of each co-user on the list. (Id., 2:66-3:8, 4:28-
`
`36.) Figure 3, reproduced below, shows a screen display of the same “Home List”
`
`buddy list from Figure 2a, which has been transmitted to and displayed on the
`
`client computer in buddy list window 40:
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3, 4:29-42 (“In the preferred embodiment, when the user first logs into
`
`the system the Buddy List window 40 [in Figure 3] opens, informing the user
`
`which of the user’s buddy list members are currently online.”).) The buddy list
`
`window 40 in Figure 3 also includes an “IM” button that allows the user to initiate
`
`instant messaging with recipients selected from the buddy list. (Id., 6:13-16.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
` Overview of Martin-Flatin [Ex.1109]
`Martin-Flatin, entitled “Push vs. Pull
`in Web-Based Network
`
`Management,” describes two well-known implementation models for allowing a
`
`first system (such as a server) to deliver information to a second system (such as a
`
`client) over a network. Martin-Flatin qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) (pre-AIA). (Ex.1109.)
`
`As noted in the discussion of Appelman above, claims 18, 32, 52, and 63
`
`recite that the client sends a “request” for a “a list of recipients associated with
`
`the client.” Appelman makes clear that a list of recipients is transmitted to the
`
`client by the server but does not state whether the client issued a “request” for that
`
`list. This Petition accordingly cites Martin-Flatin to demonstrate that the claimed
`
`recitation of a “request” adds nothing patentably distinct over Appelman.
`
`Martrn-Flatin discusses two well-known data delivery techniques, generally
`
`referred to as “pull model” and “push model.” (Lavian, ¶¶80, 81.) The “pull
`
`model” refers to an arrangement in which a client system sends an explicit request
`
`for certain information to the server – and thus “pulls” the information from the
`
`server. (Id., ¶80.) The “push model,” as its name implies, refers to an
`
`arrangement in which a request from the client is not required – the server simply
`
`sends or “pushes” the informa