`
`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