UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,724,622
`(PETITION 1 OF 2)
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information ......................................................... 5 
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 6 
`III. 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 6 
`V. 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 6 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 8 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8 
`VIII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’622 PATENT AND PRIOR ART, AND
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................... 9 
`A.  Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 3, 4, 6-
`8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21-23, 27, 32, 34, 35, 38, and 39 .............................. 9 
`1. 
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................... 9 
`2. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 30 
`3. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 35 
`4. 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 37 
`5. 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 41 
`6. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 43 
`7. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 48 
`8. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 54 
`9. 
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 56 
`10.  Claim 21 ................................................................................... 58 
`11.  Claim 22 ................................................................................... 58 
`12.  Claim 23 ................................................................................... 60 
`13.  Claim 27 ................................................................................... 61 
`14.  Claim 32 ................................................................................... 67 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`15.  Claim 34 ................................................................................... 67 
`16.  Claim 35 ................................................................................... 70 
`17.  Claim 38 ................................................................................... 70 
`18.  Claim 39 ................................................................................... 71 
`Ground 2 – Griffin, Zydney, and Aravamudan Render Obvious
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................. 72 
`1. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 72 
`Ground 3 – Griffin, Zydney, and Vuori Render Obvious Claim
`11 ........................................................................................................ 76 
`1. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 76 
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ................................................... 9
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Description
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/546,673, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`U.S. Patent No. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”)
`1005
`International Published Application No. WO01/11824A2 (“Zydney”)
`1006
`RESERVED
`1007
`1008 WO 02/17650A1
`U.S. Patent No. 6,301,609 (“Aravamudan”)
`1009
`1010
`-
`1014
`1015
`1016
`-
`1018
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0146097 (“Vuori”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/398,063, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/740,030, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`1 Citations to non-patent publications are to the original page numbers of the
`
`publication, and citations to U.S. patents are to column:line number of the patents.
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`Am., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-642 (Lead Case) (E.D. Tex.)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16th. ed. 2000)
`John Rittinghouse, IM Instant Messaging Security (1st ed. 2005)
`Dreamtech Software Team, Instant Messaging Systems: Cracking the
`Code (2002)
`Upkar Varshney et al., Voice over IP, Communication of the ACM
`(2002, Vol. 45, No. 1)
`Iain Shigeoka, Instant Messaging in Java: Jabber Protocols (2002)
`Trushar Barot & Eytan Oren, Guide to Chat Apps, TOW Center for
`Digital Journalism, Columbia University (2005)
`Samir Chatterjee et al., Instant Messaging and Presence Technologies
`for College Campuses, IEEE Network (Nov. 9, 2005)
`Daniel Minoli & Emma Minoli, Delivering Voice Over IP Networks
`(2nd ed. 2002)
`Thomas Porter & Michael Gough, How to Cheat at VoIP Security (1st
`ed. 2007)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th. ed. 2002)
`Justin Berg, The
`IEEE 802.11 Standardization
`Its History,
`Implementations and Future, George Mason
`Specification,
`University, Technical Report Series (2011)
`Wolter Lemstra & Vic Hayes, Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of
`Wi-Fi, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries (2008, Vol.
`9, No. 2)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0039340
`International Published Application No. WO 01/24036
`U.S. Patent No. 9,179,495
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0025080
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 18, 21-23, 27, 32, 34, 35, 38, and 39
`
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (“the ’622 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`According to PTO records, the ’622 Patent is assigned to Uniloc Luxembourg,
`
`S.A. (“PO”). For the reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be
`
`found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following as the real parties-in-interest: Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’622 Patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00989 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kyocera Am., Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00990 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00991
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-00992
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00993 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-
`00994 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, Case No. 2-16-cv-
`00892 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., Case No. 2-16-cv-00893
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00777 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ShoreTel, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00779 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BeeTalk Private Ltd., Case No. 2-16-cv-00725
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00728 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Green Tomato Ltd., Case No. 2-16-cv-00731
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Interactive Entm’t LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-
`00732 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. TangoMe, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00733 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tencent Am., LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-00694 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Snapchat, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00696 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00638 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BlackBerry Corp., Case No. 2-16-cv-00639 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kakao Corp., Case No. 2-16-cv-00640 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Line Euro-Americas Corp., Case No. 2-16-cv-
`00641 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-
`00642 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Viber Media S.A.R.L, Case No. 2-16-cv-00643
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. VoxerNet LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-00644 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-00645 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tencent Am., LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-00577 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kik Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00347
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2-17-cv-00349 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00231 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00224 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00214 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HeyWire, Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-01313 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`The ’622 Patent has been challenged in the following IPRs:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00223
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00224
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01667
`3
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01668
`
`
`
`Petitioner is also concurrently filing another petition challenging claims of
`
`the ’622 patent that are different than those challenged in this petition.
`
`Petitioner also identifies the following administrative matters involving
`
`related applications and patents:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/398,063 (“the ’063 Application”),
`filed on March 4, 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723 (“the ’723
`Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/740,030 (“the ’030 Application”),
`filed on December 18, 2003, now U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (“the
`’890 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/398,076 (“the ’076 Application), filed
`on March 4, 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 (“the ’747 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/224,125 (“the ’125 Application), filed
`on March 25, 2014, now U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (“the ’433
`Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/633,057 (“the ’057 Application), filed
`on February 26, 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 9,621,490 (“the ’490
`Patent”)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00220 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00221 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01523 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01524 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00222 (involving the
`’723 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01365 (involving the
`’723 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00225 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01427 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01428 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01257 (involving the
`’747 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01634 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01635 (involving the
`’723 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01636 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`Snap, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01611 (involving the ’433
`Patent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01612 (involving the ’890
`Patent)
`Petitioner is also filing IPRs challenging claims of the ’890, ’723, ’747, and
`
`’433 Patents.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224). Backup Counsel: (1) Joseph
`
`E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Phillip W. Citroën (Reg. No. 66,541), and (3)
`5
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Michael A. Wolfe (Reg. No. 71,922). Service Information: Paul Hastings LLP, 875
`
`15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, Tel: (202) 551-1700, Fax: (202) 551-
`
`1705, E-mail: PH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to
`
`electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’622 Patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified
`
`below.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 18, 21-23, 27, 32, 34-35, 38, and 39 of the ’622
`
`Patent should be cancelled as unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21-23, 27, 32, 34, 35, 38, and 39
`
`are each obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,150,922 (“Griffin”) (Ex. 1005) and International Patent Application No. WO
`
`01/11824A2 (“Zydney”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 2: Claim 12 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin, Zydney
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 6,301,609 (“Aravamudan”) (Ex. 1009); and
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Ground 3: Claim 11 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin, Zydney,
`
`and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0146097 (“Vuori”) (Ex. 1015).2
`
`The ’622 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 13/546,673 (Ex. 1004),
`
`filed on July 11, 2012, and claims priority to the ’063 Application (Ex. 1019), filed
`
`on March 4, 2009, now the ’723 Patent (Ex. 1020), which claims priority to the
`
`’030 Application (Ex. 1021), filed on December 18, 2003, now the ’890 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1022). Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes
`
`the earliest effective filing date of the ’622 Patent is December 18, 2003.
`
`Griffin was filed on July 17, 2002 and thus is prior art at least under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Zydney was published on February 15, 2001, Aravamudan was
`
`published on October 9, 2001, and Vuori was published on October 10, 2002, and
`
`thus are each prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`None of the references in Grounds 1-3 were considered during prosecution
`
`of the ’622 Patent. While certain secondary references are at issue in the other IPRs
`
`challenging the ’622 patent (Part II.B), Grounds 1-3 rely on Griffin as a primary
`
`
`2 For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on any prior art reference
`
`other than those listed here. Other references discussed herein are provided to show
`
`the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics
`
`v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`reference, which is not at issue in the other IPRs. Thus, the Board should consider
`
`and adopt Grounds 1-3 because they are different than those in the other IPRs.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’622 Patent (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least
`
`two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., network communication
`
`systems. More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶15-16.)3
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an IPR, a claim that will not expire before a final written decision is
`
`issued receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The ’622 Patent will not
`
`expire before a final written decision will be issued. Therefore, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applies.4 Because the Board need not
`
`
`3 Petitioner submits the testimony of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’622 Patent. (Id., ¶¶1-58; Ex. 1003.)
`
`4 Because of the different claim interpretation standards used in this proceeding
`
`and in district courts, any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`construe the challenged claims to resolve the underlying controversy, for purposes
`
`of this proceeding, the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the BRI standard. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015). Thus, Petitioner applies the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning to the challenged claims herein. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60.)
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’622 PATENT AND PRIOR ART, AND
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`As explained in detail by Dr. Haas, the ’622 Patent is directed to instant
`
`voice messaging over a packet-switched network that interconnects clients via a
`
`server. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:47-3:4, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-58.) Below, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates why the challenged claims of the ’622 Patent are unpatentable over
`
`the prior art references listed in Part IV, which are discussed in detail below.
`
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 3, 4, 6-8,
`10, 11, 13, 18, 21-23, 27, 32, 34, 35, 38, and 39
`1.
`Claim 3
`
`a.
`“A system comprising:”
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Griffin discloses a system having the
`
`features recited in the remaining elements of this claim. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-70, 92-
`
`
`Petitioner in any litigation related to the ’622 Patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not
`
`concede that the challenged claims are not invalid for reasons not raised herein.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`97.) For example, Griffin discloses a system for exchanging real-time speech (i.e.,
`
`voice) chat messages between mobile terminals 100.5 (Ex. 1005, Figs. 2-3, 1:6-12,
`
`3:49-5:15; Parts IX.A.1.b-1.f.)
`
`b.
`
`“a network interface connected to a packet-switched
`network;”
`The specification of the ’622 Patent describes a “network interface” as a
`
`generic component and/or functionality that “provide[s] connectivity to a
`
`network,” and provides an Ethernet card as an example. (Ex. 1001, 12:11-14,
`
`13:41-44.) Thus, consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning under the BRI
`
`standard, the claimed “network interface” is a component and/or functionality that
`
`provides connectivity to a network. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60, 98-100.) Based on this
`
`understanding, Griffin discloses these features of claim 3 in two independent ways.
`
`(Id., ¶¶98-117.)
`
`First, regarding Figure 3, Griffin explains that each terminal 100 contains a
`
`“network interface 306” (“network interface”) for communicating with server 204.6
`
`(Ex. 1005, 4:44-51; id., 3:51-65, Fig. 3.) Network interface 306 “comprises the
`
`5 Each speech message is either an “inbound (i.e., received by the user’s mobile
`
`terminal)” or an “outbound (i.e., sent by the user’s mobile terminal)” message. (Ex.
`
`1005, 1:40-44; id., 5:6-9.)
`
`6 All highlighting in reproduced figures has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`entire physical interface necessary” for terminal 100 “to communicate with the
`
`server 204, including a wireless transceiver.” (Id., 4:44-51.)
`
`
`
`Network interface 306 is connected to “a packet-switched network,” as
`
`claimed. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶102-04.) For example, as shown in Figure 2, Griffin explains
`
`that “data packets” communicated between terminals 100 are transmitted through
`
`network 203. (Ex. 1005, 3:51-65; id., 4:44-51, Fig. 2.) Network 203 “is a packet-
`
`based network,” such as “the Internet.” (Id., 3:59-65.) Additionally, as explained in
`
`the ’622 Patent, and as was well known in the art, the Internet is a packet-switched
`
`network. (Ex. 1001, 1:37-43, 1:52-55, 7:2-4; Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-43, 104; Ex. 1024,
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`838-39, 894, 935-36; Ex. 1027, 89-93; Ex. 1031, 24-25, 157-58.)7 Accordingly,
`
`network interface 306 is a component that provides connectivity to a packet-
`
`switched network. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶101-04.)
`
`
`
`That network interface 306 provides connectivity to network 203 indirectly
`
`via infrastructure 202 does not alter this conclusion, because a POSA would have
`
`understood that the plain and ordinary meaning of “network interface” under the
`
`BRI standard encompasses a network interface that provides an indirect connection
`
`to a packet-switched network. (Ex. 1002, ¶105.) This understanding is confirmed
`
`by the claims and the specification of the ’622 Patent, neither of which require a
`
`7 Exhibits 1024, 1027, 1031 are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and
`
`are not relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra, footnote 2.)
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`direct connection. (Id.) To the contrary, the specification contemplates an indirect
`
`connection to a packet-switched network, e.g., via a PSTN. (Ex. 1001, 1:66-2:21;
`
`id., 7:37-49.) Even if the claim imposed such a requirement, however, it would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention to modify
`
`Griffin’s system/process such that network interface 306 is directly connected to
`
`network 203 in view of the teachings of Zydney. (Ex. 1002, ¶106.)
`
`Zydney describes a system that includes agents 22, 28, and central server 24,
`
`which together facilitate instant voice messaging between agents. (Ex. 1006,
`
`10:19-11:6; Ex. 1002, ¶¶71-76, 107-09.) Zydney explains that agents 22, 28 may be
`
`implemented on any suitable client device (e.g., PDA). (Id., 11:14-20.) As shown
`
`in Figure 1 (below), agents 22, 28 communicate with one another and with server
`
`24 via a direct connection to the Internet through transmission line 26. (Id., Figs. 1-
`
`2; id., 1:2-3, 2:6-10, 5:3-7, 5:15-18, 10:11-16, 14:2-5, 23:11-12.)
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Zydney discloses that agents 22, 28 and server 24 are directly
`
`connected to a packet-switched network (e.g., Internet). (Ex. 1002, ¶109.) And, as
`
`a POSA would have known, the component and/or functionality that provides
`
`connectivity to the network is a network interface. (Id.) This is confirmed by
`
`Zydney’s explanation that communication is “over a set of well-known ports” (Ex.
`
`1006, 26:1-2), and Zydney’s discussion of well-known network interface
`
`components, such as a modem (id., 17:5-9; id., 28:16-18, 30:11-13; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶109.)
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`In view of these teachings and the knowledge of a POSA, a POSA would
`
`have been motivated to modify Griffin’s system/process so that network interface
`
`306 of terminal 100 is directly connected to network 203, similar to as described in
`
`Zydney. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶110-14.) KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
`
`(2007). For example, a POSA would have been aware of the many well-known
`
`benefits of having a direct connection to network 203 (e.g., Ethernet), instead of or
`
`in addition to an indirect connection via infrastructure 202. (Ex. 1002, ¶111.) In
`
`particular, as a POSA would have known, each type of connection has advantages
`
`over the other that would allow each to offer higher quality services under
`
`disparate conditions. (Id.) For example, while infrastructure 202 may have
`
`provided access to network 203 over a larger geographical area, a direct connection
`
`would have provided a more reliable and faster transfer speed of messages and/or
`
`allowed for unimpeded communication in the event infrastructure 202 is slow or
`
`unavailable. (Id.) Additionally, a POSA would have known that a direct connection
`
`may not have required payment of a service fee to a wireless carrier to use
`
`infrastructure 202. (Id.) Thus, a POSA would have understood that direct and
`
`indirect connections to network 203 would have complemented each other. (Id.)
`
`Also, such a modification would have been nothing more than a simple
`
`substitution of one known and commonly-used technology (e.g., a direct network
`
`connection, similar to as described in Zydney) for another (e.g., an indirect network
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`connection, similar to as described in Griffin), or a combination of such
`
`technologies by known methods without changing their respective functions, to
`
`achieve the predictable result of a client device having a network interface directly
`
`connected to a packet-switched network for messaging. (Id., ¶¶31-41, 48-51, 111-
`
`13; Ex. 1033, 17-18; Ex. 1034, 1-3; Ex. 1035, 136, Ex. 1036, ¶17; Ex. 1037, 1:23-
`
`26; Ex. 1038, 1:12-13; Ex. 1039, ¶18.)8 KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`Moreover, because both Griffin and Zydney are in the same technical field of
`
`network communication systems, teach solutions to common problems in the field,
`
`and describe technologies that were well known, similar, and compatible, a POSA
`
`would have been encouraged to look to Zydney to complement the teachings of
`
`Griffin. (Ex. 1005, 1:8-12, 3:59-65, 4:10-15; Ex. 1006, Abstract, 5:1-5, 10:11-18;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶114.)
`
`Griffin also discloses a “network interface” in a second, independent way.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶115-17.) In particular, Griffin explains that server 204 is directly
`
`connected with network 203 for communicating with terminals 100 (Ex. 1005,
`
`Figs. 2-3, 3:51-61, 4:61-5:15, 6:56-7:17) and that messages flow into server 204
`
`“via the router 301” (id., 4:62-5:9; id., Fig. 3 (below), 7:8-11). Figure 2 shows that
`
`
`8 These other exhibits are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and are not
`
`relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra, footnote 2.)
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`server 204 is directly connected to network 203. (Id., 3:59-65.) Accordingly, router
`
`301 comprises a network interface because it is a component that provides
`
`connectivity to network 203. (Ex. 1002, ¶117.)
`
`
`
`c.
`
`“a messaging system communicating with a plurality
`of instant voice message client systems via the
`network interface; and”
`Both the claim and the specification of the ’622 Patent describe the claimed
`
`“messaging system” only by its function, rather than its structure. (Ex. 1001,
`
`13:46-60, 22:34-40; Ex. 1002, ¶¶118-19.) For example, the claim describes the
`
`“messaging system” as some unspecified component and/or functionality that is
`
`“communicating with a plurality of instant voice message client systems via the
`
`network interface.” Similarly, the specification describes “messaging system 436”
`
`as some unspecified component and/or functionality that is “able to communicate
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`with the IVM clients 206, 208.” (Ex. 1001, 13:57-60.) Griffin discloses a
`
`component and/or functionality that performs the same function as the claimed
`
`“messaging system.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶118-27.)
`
`For example, as shown in Figures 2 and 3 (below), Griffin explains that
`
`server 204 includes a message broadcaster 303 (“messaging system”), which
`
`communicates with terminals 100 (“a plurality of instant voice message client
`
`systems”) via router 301 (“network interface”) and network interface 306
`
`(“network interface”).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`Outbound messages from terminal 100 “pass through the network interface
`
`306” (Ex. 1005, 4:44-48) and into server 204 “via the router 301” (id., 4:62-65),
`
`which “directs the outbound chat message 400 towards a message broadcaster 303”
`
`(id., 5:2-5; id., 6:38-44.) Broadcaster 303 decomposes outbound messages to
`
`determine target terminal(s) 100 (id., 6:56-61), composes inbound messages for
`
`each available target terminal 100 (id., 6:61-7:1), and sends the inbound message
`
`to each available target terminal 100 over network 203 “via the router 301” (id.,
`
`7:8-11; id., 5:2-15.) Inbound messages that are received by a target terminal 100
`
`“pass through the network interface 306.” (Id., 4:44-48.)
`
`Accordingly, broadcaster 303 discloses the claimed “messaging system,” as
`
`it is a component and/or functionality for communicating with client systems (i.e.,
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`terminals 100) via network interfaces (i.e., router 301, network interface 306). (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶119-22.)
`
`Moreover, terminals 100 are “instant voice message client systems,” as
`
`claimed. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶123-27.) Indeed, Griffin explains that the messages
`
`transmitted between terminals 100 via server 204 may be speech (i.e., voice)
`
`messages. (Ex. 1005, Title (“Voice and Text Group Chat”), 1:7-11, 3:20-22, 3:28-
`
`30, 4:11-18, 4:27-29, 4:40-44, 4:52-56 (encoding/decoding speech using a “voice
`
`codec”), 4:62-65, 5:9-15, 6:38-44, 8:47-52, 9:27-31, 10:36-43 (“speech content of
`
`an outbound voice message”), 10:53-58, 11:42-12:3, 12:24-28, 12:38-47.)
`
`Additionally, each speech message is an “instant” voice message, as
`
`claimed, because it is a voice message transmitted in “real-time” to an available
`
`recipient terminal 100. (Id., 1:6-11; id., 4:11-18, 4:40-56, 4:62-65, 5:2-15, 6:38-44,
`
`6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:8-14, 8:47-52, 9:27-31, 10:36-52, 11:42-47, 12:1-17.) Griffin’s
`
`description of real-time speech messaging is consistent with how instant messaging
`
`is described in the specification of the ’622 Patent, and was understood in the art.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶17-30, 44-47, 126-27; Ex. 1024, 435, 936; Ex. 1025, 3-4; Ex. 1026, 1;
`
`Ex. 1028, 4-6, 11-14, 18, 218, Fig. 1.2; Ex. 1029, 9-10; Ex. 1030, 3; Ex. 1032, 36;
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Revi