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 2 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.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’622 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................ 9 
`A. 
`The ’622 Patent .................................................................................... 9 
`Griffin (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................. 9 
`B. 
`Zydney (Ex. 1006) .............................................................................. 10 
`C. 
`Clark (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................. 11 
`D. 
`Vaananen (Ex. 1008) .......................................................................... 11 
`E. 
`Low (Ex. 1010) ................................................................................... 12 
`F. 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 12 
`IX.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ......................... 13 
`Claims from Which the Challenged Claims Depend – Griffin
`A. 
`and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 3, 13, and 27 ............................ 13 
`1. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 14 
`2. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 36 
`3. 
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 38 
`Ground 1 – Griffin, Zydney, and Clark Render Obvious Claims
`14-17, and 28-31 ................................................................................. 44 
`1. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 44 
`2. 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 52 
`3. 
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 53 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`4. 
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 55 
`Claim 28 ................................................................................... 59 
`5. 
`Claim 29 ................................................................................... 59 
`6. 
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 59 
`7. 
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 60 
`8. 
`Ground 2 – Griffin, Zydney, and Vaananen Render Obvious
`Claims 19 and 33 ................................................................................ 60 
`1. 
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 60 
`2. 
`Claim 33 ................................................................................... 64 
`D.  Ground 3 – Griffin, Zydney, and Low Render Obvious Claims
`24-26 ................................................................................................... 64 
`1. 
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 64 
`2. 
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 71 
`3. 
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 73 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 77 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`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) ................................................. 13
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 (“Clark”)
`1007
`1008 WO 02/17650A1 (“Vaananen”)
`RESERVED
`1009
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0018726A1 (“Low”)
`1010
`1011
`-
`1018
`
`RESERVED
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`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
`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)
`
`
`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
`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,
`Specification,
`Implementations and Future, George Mason
`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
`
`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 14-17, 19, 24-26, 28-31, and 33 (“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 14-17, 19, 24-26, 28-31, and 33 of the ’622 Patent should be
`
`cancelled as unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 14-17 and 28-31 are each obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”) (Ex. 1005), International
`
`Patent Application No. WO 01/11824A2 (“Zydney”) (Ex. 1006), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,725,228 (“Clark”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Ground 2: Claims 19 and 33 are each obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Griffin, Zydney, and International Patent Application No. WO 02/17650A1
`
`(“Vaananen”) (Ex. 1008); and
`
`Ground 3: Claims 24-26 are each obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin,
`
`Zydney, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0018726A1 (“Low”)
`
`(Ex. 1010).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, Clark was filed on October 31, 2000, and
`
`Low was filed on April 29, 2002, and thus are each prior art at least under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Zydney was published on February 15, 2001, and Vaananen
`
`
`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
`was published on February 28, 2002, and thus are each prior art at least under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Although identified, Vaananen was not discussed or addressed during
`
`prosecution of the ’622 Patent, and the remaining references of Grounds 1-3 were
`
`not considered during prosecution. 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 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
`
`
`
`
`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.)
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’622 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’622 Patent
`The ’622 Patent purports to address a need to provide “local and global
`
`instant voice messaging over VoIP with PSTN support.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:47-
`
`53.) For instance, with reference to Figure 2, the ’622 Patent discloses a system
`
`having one or more instant voice message (IVM) clients 206, 208 and an IVM
`
`server 202 connected over a packet-switched network 204. (Id., 2:60-3:4, Fig. 2.)
`
`A user operates the IVM client to record a message for one or more selected
`
`recipients. (Id., 7:65-8:14.) The IVM client transmits the voice message to the IVM
`
`server for delivery to the recipients. (Id., 8:22-26.) If a recipient is “available,” the
`
`server transmits the instant voice message to the recipient. (Id., 8:32-34.) If the
`
`recipient is “unavailable,” the server temporarily saves the voice message and
`
`transmits it once the recipient becomes available. (Id., 8:34-39.) (See also Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶52-58.)
`
`B. Griffin (Ex. 1005)
`Griffin describes a system for exchanging speech (i.e., voice) chat messages
`
`in real time between wireless mobile terminals 100 via server complex 204. (Ex.
`
`1005, 1:6-12, 3:49-4:11, Figs. 2-3.) A terminal 100 user generates and transmits a
`
`message to selected recipient terminals 100 by activating “push-to-talk button 101”
`
`and speaking into “microphone 107.” (Id., 9:23-31; see also id., 3:28-30, 8:39-52,
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`8:64-67.) Griffin refers to a message transmitted by terminal 100 as an “outbound
`
`chat message 400.” (Id., 1:40-44, 4:44-48, 4:62-65, 5:2-9, Fig. 4.)
`
`The outbound message 400 is transmitted over “packet-based network” 203
`
`(e.g., the Internet) and received by server complex 204. (Id., 3:51-65.) Server
`
`complex 204 then composes and transmits over network 203 a message to each
`
`recipient terminal 100 that is determined to be available based on the “current
`
`status 702” corresponding to each recipient terminal 100. (Id., 6:56-7:1, 7:8-11,
`
`5:11-30.) Griffin refers to a message transmitted by server complex 204 and
`
`received by a recipient terminal 100 as an “inbound chat message 500.” (Id., 1:40-
`
`44, 4:44-48, 5:2-9, Fig. 5.) According to Griffin inbound message 500 “comprises
`
`the original outbound message 400.” (Id., 7:19-25.) (See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-70.)
`
`C.
`Zydney (Ex. 1006)
`Zydney describes a system having a central server 24 that facilitates the
`
`exchange of instant voice messages between a sender software agent 22 and a
`
`recipient software agent 28 over a packet-switched network (e.g., the Internet).
`
`(Ex. 1006, Abstract, 10:11-11:6, Fig. 1.) Central server 24 facilitates the exchange
`
`of messages based on the status of recipient agent 28 (e.g., online or offline). (Id.,
`
`13:12-14, 14:6-9, 14:17-15:1, 30:13-15, 32:9-33:2.)
`
`In one mode of
`
`communication, if the recipient agent 28 is available (e.g., online), the voice
`
`message is placed into a “voice container” and transmitted to the recipient
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`immediately. (Id., 1:21-22, 10:20-11:3, 15:8-14, Figs. 4, 8.) If the recipient agent
`
`28 is unavailable (e.g., offline), the voice container is temporarily stored at the
`
`server until the recipient is available. (Id., 13:12-15, 14:9-16, 15:15-15, Figs. 4, 8.)
`
`(See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶71-76.)
`
`D. Clark (Ex. 1007)
`Clark discloses a system/process “for cataloging, retrieving and/or
`
`manipulating electronic messages,” including “instant messages.” (Ex. 1007, 8:31-
`
`44; see also id., 4:9-12, 8:7-10, 16:50-17:22.) Clark’s system is a client-server
`
`messaging system that involves “a very simple computer network 14 which
`
`connects a server computer 12 and two user computers 16 and 18.” (Id., 7:67-8:2,
`
`Fig. 1A.) Each client computer may include a “message store 23” (id., 4:35-38),
`
`which comprises a “database structure that provides temporary or permanent
`
`storage for the contained messages 22” (id., 9:11-15). (See also id., 11:1-5.) Each
`
`message 22 in message store 23 is represented by one or more database records
`
`each having a unique identifier (e.g., “StoreMessageId,” “MessageId”). (Id., 11:5-
`
`12:6, Figs. 5A-5B. (See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶77-81.)
`
`E.
`Vaananen (Ex. 1008)
`Vaananen describes a client/server system for instant voice messaging that
`
`includes subscriber and recipient terminals and a network server. (Ex. 1008,
`
`Abstract, 1:3-8, 5:1-30.) Vaananen explains that a terminal user can record and
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`save a voice message as a data file for transmission to a recipient terminal over a
`
`network. (Id., 2:22-29, 7:1-10.) The data file may be encrypted prior to being sent
`
`to the recipient terminal (id., 2:24-30), and decrypted upon receipt (id., 18:4-10) so
`
`that the voice message can be played (id., 17:26-18:2). (See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶84-
`
`85.)
`
`Low (Ex. 1010)
`
`F.
`Low discloses an instant messaging system having an instant message (IM)
`
`gateway 2 connected to a communications network 14 that processes IM packets
`
`received from IM clients 10, 32, 34. (Ex. 1010, Abstract, ¶¶27, 29.) Low’s system
`
`allows IM client users to monitor the presence of other users on the system in order
`
`to exchange messages and files. (Id., ¶¶4, 27, 29.) The IM clients may send data
`
`and/or commands to the IM gateway that change “the user’s state or presence” on
`
`the IM network (e.g., login/logout). (Id., ¶¶39, 42.) The IM client may also send
`
`commands (e.g., code) to establish and maintain a network connection. (Id., ¶37.)
`
`The gateway then forwards the data and/or commands to the appropriate IM server.
`
`(Id., ¶42.) (See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶86-90.)
`
`VIII. 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
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`expire before a final written decision will be issued. Therefore, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applies.4 Because the Board need not
`
`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.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Claims from Which the Challenged Claims Depend – Griffin and
`Zydney Render Obvious Claims 3, 13, and 27
`
`Claims 3, 13, and 27 are not directly challenged in this petition. Instead,
`
`these claims are challenged in a concurrently filed petition. However, because the
`
`claims challenged in this petition depend from one or more of claims 3, 13, and 27,
`
`this petition shows how the combination of Griffin and Zydney render obvious
`
`claims 3, 13, and 27.
`
`4 Because of the different claim interpretation standards used in this proceeding
`
`and in district courts, any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon
`
`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,
`
`including under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`1.
`
`Claim 3
`
`a.
`“A system comprising:”
`To the extent the preamble is construed to be limiting, Griffin discloses a
`
`system having the features recited in the remaining elements of this claim. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶61-70, 92-97.) For example, Griffin discloses a messaging 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; see also Parts IX.A.1.b-1.f.)
`
`b.
`
`“a network interface connected to a packet-switched
`network;”
`
`The specification of the ’622 Patent generally 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.)
`
`5 Each speech chat 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; see also id., 5:6-9.)
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`First, as shown in Figure 3 (below), Griffin explains that each mobile
`
`terminal 100 contains a “network interface 306” (“network interface”) for
`
`communicating with server complex 204.6 (Ex. 1005, 4:44-51; see also id., 3:51-
`
`65, Fig. 3.) Network interface 306 “comprises the entire physical interface
`
`necessary” for terminal 100 “to communicate with the server complex 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 (below), Griffin
`
`explains that “data packets” communicated between terminals 100 via server
`
`6 All highlighting in reproduced figures has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`complex 204 are transmitted through wireless carrier 202 to communication
`
`network 203. (Ex. 1005, 3:51-65; see also id., 4:44-51, Fig. 2.) Network 203 “is a
`
`packet-based network,” such as “the Internet or World Wide Web, a private
`
`network such as a corporate intranet, or a combination of public and private
`
`network elements.” (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, 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.)
`
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`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 claim language and the specification of the ’622 Patent, neither of which
`
`require a 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; see also 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 sender software agent 22, recipient
`
`software agent 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
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`Internet through transmission line 26. (Id., Figs. 1-2; see also id., 1:2-3, 2:6-10,
`
`5:3-7, 5:15-18, 10:11-16, 14:2-5, 23:11-12.)
`
`
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`components, such as a modem (id., 17:5-9). (See also id., 28:16-18, 30:11-13; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶109.)
`
`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