`
`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. 8,243,723
`
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,243,723
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`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 ......................................................... 4
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 5
`III.
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 5
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 5
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 6
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ............................ 7
`A.
`The ’723 Patent .................................................................................... 7
`Griffin (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................. 9
`B.
`Zydney (Ex. 1006) .............................................................................. 11
`C.
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 14
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ......................... 15
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 1-3 ............ 15
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 15
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 54
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 61
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 66
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 6
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ................................................. 14
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`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. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”)
`International Published Application No. WO 01/11824A2 (“Zydney”)
`RESERVED
`International Published Application No. WO 02/17650A1
`
`RESERVED
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`-
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`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
`Uniloc Patent Local Rule 4-2 Proposed Construction of Terms, Case
`No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (Lead) (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)
`1028
`1029
`Trushar Barot & Eytan Oren, Guide to Chat Apps, TOW Center for
`
`1 Citations to non-patent publications are to the original page numbers of the
`
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`publication, and citations to U.S. patents are to column:line number of the patents.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`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
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-3 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`(“the ’723 Patent,” Ex. 1001). According to PTO records, the ’723 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 ’723 Patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00892-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00777-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ShoreTel, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00779-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00722-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BeeTalk Private Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00728-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Green Tomato Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00731-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Interactive Entertaiment LLC, Case No.
`2:16-cv-00732-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. TangoMe, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00733-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BlackBerry Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kakao Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00640-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Line Euro-Americas Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00641-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Viber Media Sarl, Case No. 2:16-cv-00643-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. VoxerNet LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00644-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00645-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’723 Patent has been challenged in the following IPRs:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00222
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01365
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01635
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`Petitioner also identifies the following administrative matters involving
`
`related applications and patents:
`
`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”)
`
`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. 13/546,673 (“the ’673 Application”),
`filed on July 11, 2012, now U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (“the ’622
`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. 10/740,030 (“the ’030 Application”),
`filed on December 18, 2003, now U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (“the
`’890 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)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01611 (involving the ’433
`Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00223 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00224 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01257 (involving the
`’747 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)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01612 (involving the ’890
`Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01634 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01636 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01667 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01668 (involving the
`’622 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)
`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)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`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 ’723 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 1-3 of the ’723 Patent should be cancelled as unpatentable based on
`
`the following ground:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 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). 2
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`The ’723 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/398,063 (Ex. 1004),
`
`filed on March 4, 2009, and 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 ’723 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, and thus
`
`is prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`None of the references in Ground 1 were considered during prosecution of
`
`the ’723 Patent. While Zydney is at issue in other IPRs challenging the ’723 patent
`
`(Part II.B), Ground 1 relies on Griffin as a primary reference, which is not at issue
`
`in the other IPRs. Thus, the Board should consider and adopt Ground 1 because it
`
`is different than the grounds 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 ’723 Patent (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least
`
`
`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).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`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. OVERVIEW OF THE ’723 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’723 Patent
`Although the ’723 Patent acknowledges that telephone communications
`
`systems, voice messaging systems, and text messaging systems were all known
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:20-2:42, Fig. 1), the ’723 Patent purports to address a need to provide
`
`“local and global instant voice messaging over VoIP with PSTN support” (id.,
`
`Abstract, 2:43-49). For instance, with reference to Figure 2 (below), the ’723
`
`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., 2:56-67, Fig. 2.)
`
`
`3 Petitioner submits the testimony of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’723 Patent. (Id., ¶¶1-58; Ex. 1003.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`
`
`As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the IVM client 208 and server 302 are both
`
`described as a “general-purpose programmable computer” with various generic
`
`components and/or functionalities, which work in conjunction to provide the
`
`described instant voice messaging features. (Id., 11:65-12:44, 13:34-67, Figs. 3-4.)
`
`The ’723 Patent describes two methods for sending instant voice messages.
`
`In “record mode,” a user operates the IVM client to record a message (e.g.,
`
`digitized audio file) for one or more selected recipients. (Id., 7:61-8:10.) The IVM
`
`client transmits the voice message to the IVM server for delivery to the recipients.
`
`(Id., 8:18-21.) If a recipient is “available,” the server transmits the instant voice
`
`message to the recipient. (Id., 8:28-30.) If the recipient is “unavailable,” the server
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`temporarily saves the voice message and transmits it once the recipient becomes
`
`available. (Id., 8:31-35.)
`
`In “intercom mode,” successive portions of the instant voice message are
`
`automatically written to one or more buffers of a predetermined size generated by
`
`the IVM client or IVM server. (Id. 11:29-35.) Once a buffer is full, its content is
`
`automatically transmitted to the IVM server 202 for transmission to the one or
`
`more IVM recipients. (Id., 11:35-55.) This buffering and transmission process is
`
`repeated until the entire instant voice message has been transmitted to the server.
`
`(Id.; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-58.)
`
`B. Griffin (Ex. 1005)
`As shown in Figure 2 (below), 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.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`As shown in Figure 9 (below), to generate and transmit a voice message, a
`
`user operating a mobile terminal 100 may select one or more recipients from a
`
`“buddy list” and record the message by activating a “push-to-talk” button 101 and
`
`speaking into the microphone 107. (Id., 9:23-31; see also id., 3:28-30, 8:39-52,
`
`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 chat message 400 is transmitted to the server complex 204
`
`through a wireless carrier’s infrastructure 202 to a “packet-based” communication
`
`network 203, which “may comprise a public network, such as the Internet or World
`
`Wide Web, a private network such as a corporate intranet, or some combination of
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`public and private network elements.” (Id., 3:51-65.) Upon receipt, server complex
`
`204 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.) If the
`
`user is unable to view the message, the recipient terminal 100 and/or the server
`
`complex 204 may queue the message for subsequent playback. (Id., 11:48-65.)
`
`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 chat message 500 “is largely a
`
`copy of an outbound chat message 400 sent from a terminal 100 to the server
`
`complex 204.” (Id., 7:19-22.) Therefore, the inbound chat message 500 “preferably
`
`comprises the original outbound message 400,” as well as “a definition of new
`
`users not known to…the terminal 100 (i.e., not already in the receiver’s buddy-
`
`list).” (Id., 7:22-25; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-70.)
`
`C.
`
`Zydney (Ex. 1006)
`
` As shown in Figure 1 (below), Zydney describes a system having a central
`
`server 24 that facilitates the exchange of instant voice messages between a sender
`
`device 22 and a recipient device 28 over a packet-switched network (e.g., the
`
`Internet). (Ex. 1006, Abstract, 10:11-11:6, Fig. 1.) Devices 22 and 28 may
`
`comprise a personal computer, wireless handheld computer (e.g. PDA), digital
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`telephone, or beeper (id., 11:16-18), which is loaded with a software agent to
`
`perform the speech chat messaging functionalities described in Zydney (id., 14:2-5,
`
`14:15-16).
`
`
`
`Zydney explains that central server 24 maintains and conveys the
`
`connectivity status of each agent in the network. (Id., 13:12-14, 14:6-9, 14:19-22,
`
`30:13-15.) A software agent’s connectivity status includes “the core states of
`
`whether the recipient is online or offline, but also offers related status information,
`
`for example whether the recipient does not want to be disturbed.” (Id., 14:17-15:1,
`
`32:9-33:2.) For instance, if an agent is “logged onto the system” and available for
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`messaging, the agent’s connectivity status is “Available.” (Id., 32:9-20.) If the
`
`agent is logged off of the system, the agent’s connectivity status is “Not logged
`
`on.” (Id., 33:1-2.)
`
`Zydney discloses two different modes of generating an instant voice message
`
`based on the connectivity status of the agent, a “pack and send” mode and an
`
`“intercom” mode. In pack-and-send mode, if the recipient is available (e.g.,
`
`online), the voice message is placed into a “voice container” and transmitted to the
`
`recipient immediately. (Id., 1:21-22, 10:20-11:3, 15:8-14, Fig. 4.) If the recipient 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, Fig. 4.) In
`
`intercom mode, the audio message is also digitally recorded, however, only “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., 16:4-7; see also id., 15:8-10.)
`
`While the specification of Zydney primarily focuses on the embodiments
`
`illustrated in Figures 1-3, Zydney also describes a number of other embodiments
`
`with reference to Figures 4-20. (Id., 34:13-36:5, Figs. 4-20.) For example, referring
`
`to Figure 8, Zydney describes an embodiment where all voice containers are
`
`uploaded to the central server, after which the central server determines the
`
`availability of recipients. (Id., Fig. 8.) Depending on the availability of a recipient,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`the central server either transmits the voice container immediately to the recipient
`
`or temporarily stores the voice container for deliver once the recipient becomes
`
`available. (Id.; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶71-76.)
`
`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 ’723 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
`
`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 Systems,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Thus, Petitioner
`
`
`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 ’723 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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`applies the plain and ordinary meaning to the challenged claims herein. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶59-60.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 1-3
`1.
`Claim 1
`a.
`
`“A method for instant voice messaging over a packet-
`switched network, the method comprising:”
`To the extent the preamble is construed to be limiting, Griffin discloses these
`
`features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶77-87.) As shown in Figure 2 (below), Griffin describes a
`
`messaging system and method for exchanging real-time speech (i.e., voice) chat
`
`messages between mobile terminals 100 over a packet-based communications
`
`network 203.5 (Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (showing a system for exchanging messages
`
`including terminals 100, network 203, and server complex 204), Fig. 3 (same), 1:6-
`
`12, 1:7-11, 3:49-5:15 (describing the system features shown in Figures 2-3).)
`
`
`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. (Id., 1:40-44; see also id., 5:6-9.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`
`
`
`The disclosed method is “for instant voice messaging,” as claimed. For
`
`example, Griffin explains that the messages transmitted between terminals 100 and
`
`server complex 204 may be speech (i.e., voice) chat message. (Ex. 1005, Title
`
`(“Voice and Text Group Chat”), 1:7-11 (“real-time speech…conversations”), 3:20-
`
`22 (“a speaker 103 for rendering signals, such as received speech, audible”), 3:28-
`
`30 (“a push-to-talk button 101 that allows the user to initiate recording and
`
`transmission of audio”), 4:11-18 (“speech” data), 4:27-29 (“speech…chat
`
`messages”), 4:40-44 (“capture speech from the microphone 107”), 4:52-56
`
`(encoding/decoding speech using a “voice codec”), 4:62-65 (“speech and text
`
`messages”), 5:9-15 (“speech and/or text messages”), 6:38-44 (“speech” message
`
`type), 8:47-52 (“chat communication message”), 9:27-31 (“record and transmit a
`
`speech”), 10:36-43 (“speech content of an outbound voice message”), 10:53-58,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`11:42-12:3 (“recording and transfer of a speech chat message”), 12:24-28, 12:38-
`
`47 (“playing back the available speech”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60, 79-80.)
`
`Additionally, each speech (i.e., voice) chat 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; see also id., 4:11-18, 4:40-56
`
`(“capture speech from the microphone 107”), 4:62-65 (“speech and text
`
`messages”), 5:2-15, 6:38-44, 6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:8-14, 8:47-52 (“buddy list”
`
`displays “buddy’s presence status 911” indicating availability for real-time
`
`messaging), 9:27-31 (“the user is able to record and transmit a speech”), 10:36-52
`
`(“voice message”), 11:42-47 (“the recording and transfer of a speech chat message
`
`begins”), 12:1-17 (“recording and transmitting an outbound speech message”); Ex.
`
`1002, ¶81.)
`
`Indeed, Griffin’s description of real-time speech chat messaging is consistent
`
`with how instant voice messaging is described in the specification of the ’723
`
`Patent, and was understood in the art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶17-30, 45-47, 82-83; 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; Ex. 1036, ¶¶3-9; Ex. 1037, 2:12-3:27, 3:9-
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`27.)6 For example, like the system/process described in the specification of the
`
`’723 Patent (Ex. 1001, 2:30-42, 7:64-8:35, 11:26-55), Griffin’s system/process
`
`includes terminals 100 that are presented with information regarding the
`
`availability of other terminals 100 for messaging and facilitates the immediate
`
`transmission of speech chat messages between available terminals 100 via server
`
`complex 204 (Ex. 1005, 1:6-11, 4:11-18, 6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:47-52, 9:23-31).
`
`Griffin also discloses that the speech chat messages are transmitted over a
`
`“packet-switched network,” as claimed. (Ex. 1002, ¶84.) For example, as shown in
`
`Figure 2 (above), Griffin explains that “data packets” communicated between
`
`terminals 100 via server 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.)
`
`According to Griffin, communication 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 ’723 Patent, and as was well known in the art, the
`
`Internet is a packet-switched network. (Ex. 1001, 1:33-39, 1:48-51, 6:65-67; Ex.
`
`
`6 Exhibits 1024, 1032, 1036, 1037, 1028, 1029, 1025, 1030 and 1026 are cited only
`
`to demonstrate the state of the art and are not relied upon as a basis for this ground.
`
`(See supra n.2.)
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`1002, ¶¶31-43, 84-86; Ex. 1024, 838-39, 894, 935-36; Ex. 1027, 89-93; Ex. 1031,
`
`24-25, 157-58.)7
`
`b.
`
`“monitoring a connectivity status of nodes within the
`packet-switched network, said connectivity status
`being available and unavailable;”
`
`This limitation is discussed below in two parts.
`
`(1)
`
`“…nodes within the packet-switched
`network,…”
`
`Griffin in view of Zydney discloses these features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶88-100.)
`
`Each mobile terminal 100 in Griffin’s system/process represents one of the “nodes
`
`within the packet-switched network,” as claimed, because each terminal 100 is
`
`connected to packet-based network 203 (“packet-switched network”) and is a
`
`potential recipient of a speech (i.e., voice) chat message transmitted over network
`
`203.8 (Ex. 1005, 3:14-17, 3:49-61, 4:11-18, 4:44-54, 4:62-5:15, 6:56-7:11, 9:27-31,
`
`11:42-47, Figs. 1-3; Ex. 1002, ¶¶88-90.)
`
`7 Exhibits 1024, 1027 and 1031 are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art
`
`and are not relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra, n.2.)
`
`8 While the specification of the ’723 Patent describes features related to monitoring
`
`connectivity status of IVM recipients (Ex. 1001, 22:41-54), the word “node” is
`
`never used and the term was not discussed during prosecution. Without more, the
`
`meaning of the term “node” cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty by a
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`That terminal 100 is connected 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 “nodes within the packet-switched network” under
`
`the BRI standard encompasses an indirect connection to a packet-switched
`
`network. (Ex. 1002, ¶91.) This understanding is confirmed by the claim language
`
`and the specification of the ’723 Patent, neither of which require a direct
`
`connection. (Id., ¶91.) To the contrary, the specification contemplates an indirect
`
`connection to a packet-switched network, e.g., via a PSTN. (Ex. 1001, 1:62-2:17;
`
`see also id., 7:33-45.) 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 terminal 100 is directly connected to network
`
`203 in view of the teachings of Zydney. (Ex. 1002, ¶92.)
`
`Zydney describes a system including sender software agent 22, recipient
`
`software agent 28, and central server 24, which together facilitate instant voice
`
`
`POSA when read in light of the ’723 Patent specification and prosecution history.
`
`In the co-pending litigation against Petitioner, however, PO has proposed that
`
`“node” means “potential recipient.” (Ex. 1023, 6.) Petitioner does not necessarily
`
`agree with PO’s construction, but requests the Board adopt it as the BRI of “node”
`
`for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`messaging between agents. (Ex. 1006, 10:19-11:6.) 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; see also id., 1:2-3, 2:6-10, 5:3-7, 5:15-18, 10:11-16, 14:2-5, 23:11-
`
`12.)9 Accordingly, Zydney discloses that agents 22, 28 and server 24 are directly
`
`connected to a packet-switched network (e.g., Internet). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶93-95.)
`
`
`
`
`9 All highlighting in reproduced figures has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,243,723
`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 terminal 100 is
`
`directly connected to network 203, similar to as described in Zydney. (Id., ¶¶95-
`
`100.) KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). For example, a
`
`POSA would have been awar
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
