Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`Entered: January 19, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`Entered: January 19, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The above-captioned Petitioner (Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc.)
`filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 4, 5, 12, and 24–26
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’622 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (“Patent Owner”)1 filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon considering the
`record developed thus far, for reasons discussed below, we institute inter
`partes review of claims 4, 5, 12, and 24–26 of the ’622 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’622 patent is involved in Uniloc USA,
`Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00728-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and Uniloc
`USA, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00645-JRG (E.D. Tex.), among
`numerous other actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
`District of Texas. Pet. 1−3; Paper 3, 2. The ’622 patent also was the subject
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`identifies Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. as the owner of the challenged patent
`and identifies Uniloc USA, Inc. only as licensee and additional real party in
`interest. Paper 4, 1. Accordingly, we have removed Uniloc USA, Inc. from
`the case caption as Patent Owner. We note, however, that this identification
`varies from earlier cases involving the challenged patent and certain related
`patents, in which Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. both were
`identified in mandatory notices as “Patent Owner.” See, e.g.,
`IPR2017-00221, Paper 4, 1; IPR2017-00222, Paper 4, 1; IPR2017-00225,
`Paper 4, 1; IPR2017-01427, Paper 4, 1; IPR2017-01428, Paper 4, 1. The
`parties are reminded of their ongoing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3)
`to keep mandatory notices updated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`of two requests for inter partes review filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) on
`November 14, 2016 (Cases IPR2017-00223 and IPR2017-00224), both of
`which were denied. See IPR2017-00223, Paper 7 (PTAB May 25, 2017);
`IPR2017-00224, Paper 7 (PTAB May 25, 2017).
`Concurrently with the instant Petition, Petitioner additionally filed a
`petition requesting inter partes review of claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13–23, 27–
`35, 38, and 39 of the ’622 patent (Case IPR2017-01667). IPR2017-01667,
`Paper 2. Further, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed two requests for
`inter partes review of certain claims of the ’622 patent on July 20, 2017
`(Cases IPR2017-01797 and IPR2017-01798); Apple filed two additional
`requests for inter partes review, also on July 20, 2017, challenging the same
`claims as the petition in Case IPR2017-01667 and the instant Petition,
`respectively (Cases IPR2017-01804 and IPR2017-01805); Huawei Device
`Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) filed a request for inter partes review of the same
`claims as the petition in Case IPR2017-01667 on September 11, 2017 (Case
`IPR2017-02090); and Google Inc. filed two requests for inter partes review
`of certain claims of the ’622 patent on September 12, 2017 (Cases
`IPR2017-02080 and IPR2017-02081). Apple indicated in its petition in
`Case IPR2017-01805 that it intends to seek joinder with the instant
`proceeding “when appropriate.” IPR2017-01805, Paper 2, 65.
`
`B. The ’622 Patent
`The ’622 patent, titled “System and Method for Instant VoIP
`Messaging,” relates to Internet telephony, and more particularly, to instant
`voice over IP (“VoIP”) messaging over an IP network, such as the Internet.
`Ex. 1101, [54], 1:18–22. The ’622 patent acknowledges that “[v]oice
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`messaging” and “instant text messaging” in both the VoIP and public
`switched telephone network environments were previously known. Id.
`at 2:22–46. In prior art instant text messaging systems, according to the
`’622 patent, a server would present a user of a client terminal with a “list of
`persons who are currently ‘online’ and ready to receive text messages,” the
`user would “select one or more” recipients and type the message, and the
`server would immediately send the message to the respective client
`terminals. Id. at 2:34–46. According to the ’622 patent, however, “there is
`still a need in the art for . . . a system and method for providing instant VoIP
`messaging over an IP network,” such as the Internet. Id. at 1:18–22, 2:47–
`59, 6:47–49.
`In one embodiment, the ’622 patent discloses local instant voice
`messaging (“IVM”) system 200, depicted in Figure 2 below. Ex. 1101,
`6:22–24.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2, local packet-switched IP network 204,
`which may be a local area network (“LAN”), “interconnects” IVM
`clients 206, 208 and legacy telephone 110 to local IVM server 202. Id.
`at 6:50–7:2; see id. at 7:23–24, 7:61–65. Local IVM server 202 enables
`instant voice messaging functionality over network 204. Id. at 7:61–65.
`In “record mode,” IVM client 208 “displays a list of one or more IVM
`recipients,” provided and stored by local IVM server 202, and the user
`selects recipients from the list. Ex. 1101, 7:57–59, 7:65–8:4. IVM
`client 208 then transmits the selections to IVM server 202 and “records the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`user’s speech into . . . digitized audio file 210 (i.e., an instant voice
`message).” Id. at 8:4–11.
`When the recording is complete, IVM client 208 transmits audio
`file 210 to local IVM server 202, which delivers the message to the selected
`recipients via local IP network 204. Ex. 1101, 8:15−29. “[O]nly the
`available IVM recipients, currently connected to . . . IVM server 202, will
`receive the instant voice message.” Id. at 8:33−34. IVM server 202
`“temporarily saves the instant voice message” for any IVM client that is “not
`currently connected to . . . local IVM server 202 (i.e., is unavailable)” and
`“delivers it . . . when the IVM client connects to . . . local IVM server 202
`(i.e., is available).” Id. at 8:34–39; see id. at 9:17–21. Upon receiving the
`instant voice message, the recipients can audibly play the message. Id.
`at 8:29–32.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 24 is independent. Challenged
`claims 25 and 26 depend directly from claim 24, and the remaining
`challenged claims depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 3,
`which is not challenged in the instant proceeding. Unchallenged claim 3 and
`challenged claims 4 and 24 are illustrative and are reproduced below.
`3. A system comprising:
`a network interface connected to a packet-switched network;
`a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant
`voice message client systems via the network interface; and
`a communication platform system maintaining connection
`information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems indicating whether there is a current
`connection to each of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems,
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice
`message from one of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems, and
`wherein the instant voice message includes an object field
`including a digitized audio file.
`4. The system according to claim 3, wherein the instant voice
`message includes an action field identifying one of a predetermined
`set of permitted actions requested by the user.
`24. A system comprising:
`a network interface connected to a packet-switched network;
`and
`a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant
`voice message client systems via the network interface; and
`a communication platform system maintaining connection
`information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems indicating whether there is a current
`connection to each of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems,
`wherein the messaging system receives connection object
`messages from the plurality of instant voice message client
`systems, wherein each of the connection object messages
`includes data representing a state of a logical connection
`with a given one of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems.
`Ex. 1101, 24:12–30, 25:59–26:8.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts two grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`4, 5, 24–26
`
`12
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Zydney,2 Shinder,3 and
`Hethmon4
`§ 103(a) Zydney, Shinder, Microsoft,5
`and Moghe6
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., filed as
`Exhibit 1102.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation
`standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). Under the broadest
`
`
`2 Zydney et al., WO 01/11824 A2, published Feb. 15, 2001 (filed with line
`numbers added by Petitioner as Exhibit 1103).
`3 Excerpts from Debra Littlejohn Shinder, Computer Networking Essentials
`(2002) (Ex. 1114).
`4 Excerpts from Paul S. Hethmon, Illustrated Guide to HTTP (1997)
`(Ex. 1109).
`5 Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991) (Ex. 1118).
`6 Moghe, US 6,173,323 B1, issued Jan. 9, 2001 (Ex. 1119).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We note that only those
`claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “connection object
`messages,” as recited in claim 24, and “communication platform system,” as
`recited in claims 3 and 24. Pet. 7−9. Patent Owner points out alleged
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s proposed construction of the latter term and
`proposes an alternative construction. Prelim. Resp. 6−8. Because our
`determination to institute review in this case does not turn on the
`construction of any of the terms for which the parties offer a construction,
`we do not construe expressly any term at this time.
`
`B. Analysis of Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art;7 and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.8 Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving
`obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The
`petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of
`record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil
`Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the
`asserted grounds with the principles stated above in mind.
`
`
`7 Citing the testimony of Dr. Lavian, Petitioner asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the ’622 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).” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 13–15).
`Patent Owner acknowledges Petitioner’s assertion and states that “[t]o
`simply [sic] the issues before the Board at this preliminary stage, Patent
`Owner does not presently offer a different definition for a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner further states that the
`opinion of its own expert, William Easttom II, is “essentially the same as
`that of Dr. Lavian.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15). For purposes of this
`Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`8 Patent Owner does not contend in its Preliminary Response that any such
`secondary considerations are present.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`2. Ground 1: Obviousness over Zydney, Shinder, and Hethmon
`(Claims 4, 5, and 24–26)
`a. Overview of Zydney
`Zydney, titled “Method and System for Voice Exchange and Voice
`Distribution,” relates to packet communication systems that provide for
`voice exchange and voice distribution between users of computer networks.
`Ex. 1103, [54], [57], 1:4–5. While acknowledging that e-mail and instant
`messaging systems were well-known text-based communication systems
`utilized by users of online services and that it was possible to attach files for
`the transfer of non-text formats via those systems, Zydney states that the
`latter technique “lack[ed] a method for convenient recording, storing,
`exchanging, responding and listening to voices between one or more parties,
`independent of whether or not they are logged in to their network.” Id.
`at 1:7–17. Zydney thus describes a method in which “voice containers”—
`i.e., “container object[s] that . . . contain[] voice data or voice data and voice
`data properties”—can be “stored, transcoded and routed to the appropriate
`recipients instantaneously or stored for later delivery.” Id. at 1:19–22; 12:6–
`8. Figure 1 of Zydney is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, illustrates a high-level functional block diagram of
`Zydney’s system for voice exchange and voice distribution. Id. at 10:19–20.
`Referring to Figure 1, system 20 allows software agent 22, with a user
`interface, in conjunction with central server 24 to send messages using voice
`containers illustrated by transmission line 26 to another software agent 28,
`as well as to receive and store such messages, in a “pack and send” mode of
`operation. Id. at 10:20–11:1. Zydney explains that a pack and send mode of
`operation “is one in which the message is first acquired, compressed and
`then stored in a voice container 26 which is then sent to its destination(s).”
`Id. at 11:1–3. The system has the ability to store messages both locally and
`centrally at server 24 whenever the recipient is not available for a prescribed
`period of time. Id. at 11:3–6.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`In the use of Zydney’s system and method, the message originator
`selects one or more intended recipients from a list of names that have been
`previously entered into the software agent. Ex. 1103, 14:17–19. The agent
`permits distinct modes of communication based on the status of the
`recipient, including the “core states” of whether the recipient is online or
`offline and “related status information” such as whether the recipient does
`not want to be disturbed. Id. at 14:19–15:1. Considering the core states, the
`software agent offers the originator alternative ways to communicate with
`the recipient, the choice of which can be either dictated by the originator or
`automatically selected by the software agent, according to stored rules. Id.
`at 15:3–6. If the recipient is online, the originator can either begin a
`real-time “intercom” call, which simulates a telephone call, or a voice instant
`messaging session, which allows for an interruptible conversation. Id.
`at 15:8–10. If the recipient is offline, the originator can either begin a voice
`mail conversation that will be delivered the next time the recipient logs in or
`can be delivered to the recipient’s e-mail as a digitally encoded
`Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (“MIME”) attachment. Id. at 15:15–
`17. Zydney explains that the choice of the online modes “depends on the
`activities of both parties, the intended length of conversation and the quality
`of the communications path between the two individuals, which is generally
`not controlled by either party,” and that the choice of the offline delivery
`options “is based on the interests of both parties and whether the recipient is
`sufficiently mobile that access to the registered computer is not always
`available.” Id. at 15:10–14, 15:17–19.
`Once the delivery mode has been selected, the originator digitally
`records messages for one or more recipients using a microphone-equipped
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`device and the software agent. Ex. 1103, 16:1–3. 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. at 16:3–4. If the real-time
`“intercom” mode has been invoked, a small portion of the digitized voice is
`stored to account for the requirements of the Internet protocols for
`retransmission and then transmitted before the entire conversation has been
`completed. Id. at 16:4–7. Based on status information received from the
`central server, the agent then decides whether to transport the voice
`container to a central file system and/or to send it directly to another
`software agent using the IP address previously stored in the software agent.
`Id. at 16:7–10. If the intended recipient has a compatible active software
`agent online after log on, the central server downloads the voice recording
`almost immediately to the recipient. Id. at 16:10–12. The voice is
`uncompressed and the recipient can hear the recording through the speakers
`or headset attached to its computer. Id. at 16:12–14. The recipient can reply
`in a complementary way, allowing for near real-time communications. Id.
`at 16:14–15. If the recipient’s software agent is not online, the voice
`recording is stored in the central server until the recipient’s software agent is
`active. Id. at 16:15–17. “In both cases, the user is automatically notified of
`available messages once the voice recordings have been downloaded to
`storage on their computer.” Id. at 16:17–19. The central server coordinates
`with software agents on all computers continuously, updating addresses,
`uploading and downloading files, and selectively retaining voice recordings
`in central storage. Id. at 16:19–21.
`Zydney discloses that the voice container also has the ability to have
`other data types attached to it. Ex. 1103, 19:6–7. Formatting the container
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`using MIME format, for example, “allows non-textual messages and
`multipart message bodies attachments [sic] to be specified in the message
`headers.” Id. at 19:7–10.
`Figure 3 of Zydney is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3, above, illustrates an exemplary embodiment of Zydney’s
`voice container structure, including voice data and voice data properties
`components. Ex. 1103, 2:19, 23:1–2. Referring to Figure 3, voice container
`components include:
`[O]riginator’s code 302 (which is a unique identifier), one or
`more recipient’s code 304, originating time 306, delivery
`time(s) 308, number of “plays” 310, voice container source 312
`which may be a PC, telephone agent, non-PC based appliance, or
`other, voice container reuse restrictions 314 which may include
`one
`time and destroy 316, no forward 318, password
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`retrieval 320, delivery priority 322, session values 324, session
`number 326, sequence number for partitioned sequences[] 328,
`repeating information 330, no automatic repeat 332, repeat
`times 334, and a repeat schedule 336.
`Id. at 23:2–10.
`
`b. Overview of Shinder
`Shinder provides an overview of the “fundamentals of computer
`networking concepts and implementation.” Ex. 1114, 5. According to
`Shinder, it is “becom[ing] vital to business interests that a LAN be able to
`communicate with the outside” and, thus, to connect to a wide area network
`(“WAN”), such as the Internet. Id. at 31.
`
`c. Overview of Hethmon
`Hethmon provides a guide to Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”),
`focusing primarily on version HTTP/1.1. Ex. 1109, 1; see also id. at 9–13
`(briefly describing historical versions HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0). Hethmon
`explains that HTTP is the protocol used to send and receive messages
`between Web clients and servers over the Internet. Id. at 10. Hethmon
`describes HTTP as a “request-response” type of protocol, in which a client
`application sends a request to the server and then the server responds to the
`request. Id. According to Hethmon, the “Request Message” sent by a client
`to a server to request a resource in HTTP/1.1 included a “Request-Line and
`possibly a set of header lines,” with the following overall syntax:
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`= Request-Line
`Request
` * ( General-Header
`
` | Request-Header
`
` | Entity-Header )
`
` CRLF
`
` [ Entity-Body ]
`
`Request-Line = Method SP Request-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1109, 51. Hethmon explains that “[t]he request line is the message sent
`by the client to the server to request a resource or an action to take place”
`and that “[a]ll request lines begin with a Method,” where the “Method” is “a
`keyword such as GET or POST which indicate the type [of] action the
`request is asking the server to execute.” Id. at 51–52. Hethmon further
`explains that there were seven basic methods available in HTTP/1.1:
`OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, POST, PUT, DELETE, and TRACE. Id. at 52.
`
`d. Arguments and Analysis
`i. Claims 4 and 5
`Petitioner points to Zydney as disclosing all limitations of
`independent claim 3, from which, as noted above, claims 4 and 5 directly or
`indirectly depend, except that it relies on Shinder’s disclosure of network
`interface controllers (“NICs”) (Ex. 1114, 42–43) as rendering obvious the
`“network interface” recited in claim 3 and on Shinder’s disclosure that “[a]n
`example of a packet-switched network is the Internet” (id. at 19) as
`rendering obvious that the Internet as disclosed in Zydney would have been
`a packet-switched network, also as recited in claim 3. Pet. 21–36. Petitioner
`additionally relies on Hethmon, in combination with Zydney and Shinder,
`for the further limitation of claim 4, “wherein the instant voice message
`includes an action field identifying one of a predetermined set of permitted
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`actions requested by the user.” Pet. 37–45. Patent Owner disputes
`Petitioner’s evidence, arguing in particular that Zydney does not render
`obvious the claim 3 limitation “wherein the instant voice message includes
`an object field,” and that Zydney teaches away from the claim 4 limitation
`“wherein the instant voice message includes an action field identifying one
`of a predetermined set of permitted actions requested by the user.” Prelim.
`Resp. 10–18. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, we are persuaded
`for the reasons that follow that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable over
`Zydney, Shinder, and Hethmon.
`With respect to the claim 3 limitation “wherein the instant voice
`message includes an object field,” Petitioner contends that, although the
`’622 patent does not expressly define the term “object field,” the meaning of
`that term “is reasonably clear from the specification, which explains that
`‘[t]he content of the object field is a block of data being carried by the
`message object, which may be, for example, a digitized instant voice
`message.’” Pet. 34 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1101, 14:37–40).
`Relying on Dr. Lavian’s testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood from that disclosure, Petitioner argues
`Zydney discloses the object field in at least two independent ways. Id.
`at 34–36 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 137–138, 141–144).
`First, according to Petitioner, “Zydney expressly refers to [its] voice
`container,” which Petitioner maps to the recited instant voice message, “as
`an ‘object’ that contains voice data: ‘The term “voice containers” as used
`throughout this application refers to a container object that contains no
`methods, but contains voice data or voice data and voice data properties.’”
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`Pet. 34–35 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1103, 12:6–8). While
`conceding that Zydney does not use the specific word “field” in relation to
`storage of voice data, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art “would have understood that the voice data is contained in a field of the
`voice container.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 137–138). Petitioner further
`contends it would also have been obvious that the Zydney voice container
`would contain an object field “because, without one, the recipient device
`could not separate the voice data from the other fields of data in the voice
`container and play back the voice data for the user – a capability the
`recipient in Zydney has.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 138 n.13).
`Second, Petitioner argues, Zydney discloses that voice containers can
`be encoded using the industry-standard MIME format, “which ‘allows
`non-textual messages and multipart message bodies [sic] attachments to be
`specified in the message headers,’” and Zydney also specifically refers to
`and incorporates by reference Request for Comments (“RFC”) 1521
`(Ex. 1106), which “explains that a MIME message can contain audio or
`voice data in the ‘body,’ the field of the message containing the content
`being conveyed.” Pet. 35–36 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 143;
`Ex. 1103, 19:7–10, 19:13–20:9; Ex. 1106). Relying on Dr. Lavian’s
`testimony, Petitioner contends that because Zydney itself discloses that
`voice containers can be encoded using MIME and directly cites to
`RFC 1521, “it would have been plainly obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art to provide the receiving software agent with the ability to format
`the voice container according to RFC 1521, thus encoding the voice data in
`the body (an ‘object field’) of the message.” Id. at 36 (emphasis omitted)
`(citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 141–144).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`With regard to the further limitation of claim 4, “wherein the instant
`voice message includes an action field identifying one of a predetermined set
`of permitted actions requested by the user,” Petitioner concedes that Zydney
`“does not appear to explicitly describe” that the instant voice message
`contains such a “field,” but contends that this feature “would have been
`obvious over Zydney in view of Hethmon.” Id. at 37 (emphasis omitted).
`More specifically, Petitioner contends that the HTTP/1.1 Request-Line, as
`described by Hethmon, discloses “an action field identifying one of a
`predetermined set of permitted actions requested by the user.” Id. at 39
`(emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 308). According to Petitioner:
`Hethmon illustrates how the Method in the Request-Line
`identifies a permitted action requested by the user. For example,
`“[t]he POST method is used as a way for a client application to
`submit data to a resource on a server application.” ([Ex. 1109,
`75].)
` The data to be transmitted is contained in the
`“Entity-Body” field in the request message. (Id. [at 51].)
`Specifically, “[u]sing the POST method, the client sends an
`entity body to the server for processing.” (Id. [at 75].) “This
`allows for data submission via HTTP to accomplish various
`goals, such as database updating or order entry.” (Id. [at 55].)
`The POST method may be used to transmit data of various types.
`(See id. [at 75]; [Ex. 1002] ¶309.)
`Pet. 39. Thus, according to Petitioner, an HTTP message with a POST
`method provides an example of an action field, as recited in claim 4, and
`“[i]n fact, the ’622 patent expressly refers to a ‘post message’ as one of the
`permitted actions that can be in the ‘action field.’” Id. at 40 (emphasis
`omitted) (citing Ex. 1101, 14:6–10).
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner errs by relying on Zydney’s
`voice container for the claimed “instant voice message,” contending that
`“Zydney distinguishes voice containers from voice messages.” Prelim.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`Resp. 10 (emphasis omitted). Further, Patent Owner contends, Petitioner’s
`“conclusory speculation” that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that the voice data is contained in a field of the voice
`container” “should be rejected for at least . . . six reasons.” Id. at 12. First,
`according to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s statements are based on “mere
`speculation or conjecture.” Id. at 12–13. Second, the claim language does
`not recite “‘a field’ in the abstract,” but instead “identifies a specific type of
`field—namely, an ‘object field.’” Id. at 13. Third, “Zydney does not use the
`word ‘field’ at all in relation to its voice container,” and “[w]hile Zydney
`describes the ‘voice container structural components’ with reference to
`Figure 3, notably absent from the list of twenty-five structural components
`(elements 302 through 338) is anything resembling ‘an object field including
`a digitized audio file.’” Id. at 13–14 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1103,
`23:1–12). Fourth, Patent Owner contends Zydney itself “refutes Petitioner’s
`speculation that Zydney must have used an undisclosed ‘structural
`component’ dedicated exclusively to an ‘audio digital file.’” Id. at 14
`(emphasis omitted). More particularly, according to Patent Owner,
`“Figure 3 of Zydney and its accompanying description . . . provide no less
`than four different examples of ‘structural components’ that each group
`together multiple items of information.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Fifth,
`Patent Owner contends, “the distinction between Zydney’s ‘structural
`components’ and the claimed ‘object field’ is not mere semantics but rather
`reflects fundamentally different technologies.” Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted).
`More specifically, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have
`recognized the word ‘field’ as a term of art in the context of packet-switched
`networks, particularly in light of the teachings of the ’622 patent,” and
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`“would have recognized that network packets have headers with various
`fields describing things such as source address, destination address, port,
`protocol, etc.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). Sixth, Patent
`Owner contends, “Zydney does not enable, and indeed could not even have
`functioned as described, using packet-switched fields of hypertext transfer
`protocol (‘HTTP’), as it existed in August 7, 2000 (Zydney’s filing date).”
`Id. at 16 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 51).
`Regarding Petitioner’s contention that the claim 4 limitation “wherein
`the instant voice message includes an action field identifying one of a
`predetermined set of permitted actions requested by the user” is taugh
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
