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. 8,995,433
`
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,995,433
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`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 ......................................................... 6 
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 6 
`III. 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 6 
`V. 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 6 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 9 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 9 
`VIII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’433 PATENT AND PRIOR ART AND
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ......................... 10 
`A.  Ground 1 – Griffin and Clark Render Obvious Claims 1-3 and 8 ..... 10 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 10 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 30 
`3. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 30 
`4. 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 32 
`Ground 2 – Griffin, Clark, and Zydney Render Obvious Claims
`4 and 7 ................................................................................................ 33 
`1. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 33 
`2. 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 38 
`Ground 3 – Griffin, Clark and Vaananen Render Obvious
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 44 
`1. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 44 
`D.  Ground 4 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 9, 11,
`14-17, 25, and 26 ................................................................................ 47 
`1. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 47 
`2. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 50 
`3. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 52 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`E. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`4. 
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 54 
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 55 
`5. 
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 57 
`6. 
`Claim 25 ................................................................................... 59 
`7. 
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 61 
`8. 
`Ground 5 – Griffin, Zydney, and Vaananen Render Obvious
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................. 68 
`1. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 68 
`Ground 6 – Griffin, Zydney, and Lee Render Obvious Claim 10 ...... 69 
`1. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 69 
`G.  Ground 7 – Griffin, Zydney, and Vuori Render Obvious Claim
`26 ........................................................................................................ 76 
`1. 
`Claim 26 ................................................................................... 76 
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78 
`
`
`F. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`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) ................................................. 10
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/224,125, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`U.S. Patent No. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”)
`International Published Application No. WO 01/11824A2
`(“Zydney”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 (“Clark”)
`International Published Application No. WO 02/17650A1
`(“Vaananen”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0101848A1 (“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0146097A1 (“Vuori”)
`E. Levinson, Request for Comments (RFC) 2387: The MIME
`Multipart/Related Content-type (Aug. 1998)
`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. 8,724,622
`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
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`-
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`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. 8,995,433
`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)
`Trushar Barot & Eytan Oren, Guide to Chat Apps, TOW Center for
`Digital Journalism, Columbia University (2005)
`Samir Chatterjee et al.,
`Instant Messaging and Presence
`Technologies for College Campuses, IEEE Network (Nov. 9, 2005)
`Daniel Minoli & Emma Minoli, Delivering Voice Over IP Networks
`(2nd ed. 2002)
`Thomas Porter & Michael Gough, How to Cheat at VoIP Security
`(1st ed. 2007)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th. ed. 2002)
`Justin Berg, The IEEE 802.11 Standardization Its History,
`Implementations and Future, George Mason
`Specification,
`University, Technical Report Series (2011)
`Wolter Lemstra & Vic Hayes, Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of
`Wi-Fi, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries (2008,
`Vol. 9, No. 2)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0039340
`International Published Application No. WO 01/24036
`U.S. Patent No. 9,179,495
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0025080
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 (“challenged claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (“the ’433 Patent,” Ex. 1001). According to PTO
`
`records, the ’433 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 ’433 Patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kik Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00481
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2-17-cv-00475 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00465 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00466 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00467 (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.)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`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.)
`
`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.)
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`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 Entertainment LLC, Case No. 2-
`16-cv-00732 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. TangoMe, Inc. d/b/a Tango, 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.)
`
`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 Sarl, 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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tencent Am., LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-00577 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`The ’433 Patent has been challenged in the following IPRs:
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00225
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01427
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01428
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01634
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01611
`
`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. 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. 12/398,063 (“the ’063 Application”),
`filed on March 4, 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723 (“the ’723
`Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 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., IPR2017-00223 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00224 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`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)
`
`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)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01636 (involving the
`’890 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01635 (involving the
`’723 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., IPR2017-01612 (involving the ’890
`Patent)
`Petitioner is also filing IPRs challenging claims of the ’890, ’723, ’747, and
`
`’622 Patents.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`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)
`
`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 ’433 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 1-5, 7-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 of the ’433 Patent should be cancelled
`
`as unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 8 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 U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,725,228 (“Clark”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 7 are each obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Griffin, Clark, and International Patent Application No. WO 01/11824A2
`
`(“Zydney”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 3: Claim 5 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin, Clark, and
`
`International Patent Application No. WO 02/17650A1 (“Vaananen”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`Ground 4: Claims 9, 11, 14-17, 25, and 26 are each obvious under § 103(a)
`
`in view of Griffin and Zydney;
`
`Ground 5: Claim 12 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin, Zydney,
`
`and Vaananen;
`
`Ground 6: Claim 10 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin, Zydney,
`
`and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0101848 (“Lee”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`and
`
`Ground 7: Claim 26 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Griffin, Zydney,
`
`and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0146097 (“Vuori”) (Ex. 1015).2
`
`The ’433 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 14/224,125 (Ex. 1004),
`
`
`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. 8,995,433
`filed on March 25, 2014, and claims priority to the ’673 Application (Ex. 1017),
`
`filed on July 11, 2012, now the ’622 Patent (Ex. 1018), which 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 ’433
`
`Patent is December 18, 2003.
`
`Griffin was filed on July 17, 2002, and Clark was filed on October 31, 2000,
`
`and thus are each prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Zydney was
`
`published on February 15, 2001, Vaananen was published on February 28, 2002,
`
`Lee was published on August 1, 2002, and Vuori was published on October 10,
`
`2002, and thus are each prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Although identified, Vaananen was not discussed or addressed during
`
`prosecution of the ’433 Patent, and the remaining references of Grounds 1-7 were
`
`not considered during prosecution. While certain secondary references are at issue
`
`in the other IPRs challenging the ’433 patent (Part II.B), Grounds 1-7 rely on
`
`Griffin as a primary reference, which is not at issue in the other IPRs. Thus, the
`
`Board should consider and adopt Grounds 1-7 because they are different than those
`
`in the other IPRs.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`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 ’433 Patent (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least
`
`two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., network communication
`
`systems. More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶15-16.)3
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an IPR, a claim that will not expire before final written decision receives
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). The ’433 Patent will not expire before final written decision. Therefore,
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applies. 4 Because the
`
`Board need not construe the challenged claims to resolve the underlying
`
`
`3 Petitioner submits the testimony of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the’433 Patent. (Id., ¶¶1-58; Ex. 1003.)
`
`4 Because of the different standards used in this proceeding and in district courts,
`
`any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation
`
`related to the ’433 Patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not concede that the
`
`challenged claims are not invalid for reasons not raised herein.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`controversy, for purposes of this proceeding, the challenged claims should be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning under the BRI standard. See Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`v. Cellport Sys., Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015). Thus,
`
`Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning to the challenged claims herein.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60.)
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’433 PATENT AND PRIOR ART AND
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`As explained in detail by Dr. Haas, the ’433 Patent is directed to instant
`
`voice messaging over a packet-switched network that interconnects clients via a
`
`server. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:48-3:5, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-68.) Below, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates why the challenged claims of the ’433 Patent are unpatentable over
`
`the prior art references listed in Part IV, which are discussed in detail below.
`
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Clark Render Obvious Claims 1-3 and 8
`1.
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`“A system comprising:”
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Griffin discloses these features. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶61-70, 86-91.) For example, Griffin discloses a system for exchanging
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`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.e.)
`
`b.
`
`“an instant voice messaging application including a
`client platform system for generating an instant voice
`message and a messaging system for transmitting the
`instant voice message over a packet-switched network
`via a network interface;”
`This limitation is discussed below in three parts.
`
`(1)
`
`instant voice messaging application
`“an
`including…”
`
`
`The claim language does not provide any guidance on the meaning of the
`
`term “instant voice messaging application” beyond the functions it performs, and
`
`the specification of the ’433 Patent does not use the word “application” when
`
`describing messaging. Instead, as shown in Figure 3, the specification describes a
`
`“general-purpose programmable computer” having various generic components
`
`and/or functionalities, which work in conjunction to provide the described
`
`messaging features. (Ex. 1001, 12:13-23; id., 13:13-40, Fig. 3.) Consistent with
`
`this disclosure, Griffin discloses an “instant voice messaging application.” (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶59-60, 92-94.)
`
`5 Each speech message is either an “inbound (i.e., received by the user’s mobile
`
`terminal)” or an “outbound (i.e., sent by the user’s mobile terminal)” message. (Ex.
`
`1005, 1:40-44; id., 5:6-9.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`For example, Griffin explains that each terminal 100 (“instant voice message
`
`client system”) stores “machine-readable and executable instructions (typically
`
`referred to as software, code, or program)” on the terminal’s “application storage”
`
`310 and executes such instructions on the terminal’s CPU 311 to perform the
`
`messaging functionalities described in Griffin.6 (Ex. 1005, 4:29-61; id., 3:43-48,
`
`12:61-63.) Griffin also describes other components of terminal 100 that work with
`
`the software to perform such functionalities. (Id., 4:40-61.) For example, Griffin
`
`explains that the “software” can “capture speech from the microphone 107” using
`
`“known programming techniques” (id., 4:40-48) and “build and send” outbound
`
`chat messages (id., 12:61-63).
`
`Thus, the software (and related components) discloses the claimed “instant
`
`voice messaging application” because it performs the messaging features described
`
`in Griffin, including the features recited in the challenged claims related to the
`
`claimed “instant voice messaging application.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶92-94.)
`
`(2)
`
`“…a client platform system for generating an
`instant voice message and…”
`The claim language describes the “client platform system” only by function,
`
`rather than by structure (e.g., hardware and/or software). For example, the claim
`
`language describes the “client platform system” as some unspecified component
`
`
`6 CPU 311 in Figure 3 is misidentified in the specification as “CPU 211.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`and/or functionality “for generating an instant voice message.” While the
`
`specification of the ’433 Patent does not recite the term “client platform system,”
`
`similar to the claim language, it describes a “client platform” as some unspecified
`
`component and/or functionality “for generating an instant voice message.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 12:8-10; id., 12:19-23, Fig. 3.) Griffin discloses a component and/or
`
`functionality that performs the same function as the claimed “client platform
`
`system.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶95-102.)
`
`For example, Griffin explains that software (and related components)
`
`(“instant voice messaging application”) stored and executed on terminal 100
`
`generates a speech message based on speech captured by microphone 107. (Ex.
`
`1005, 3:43-48, 4:40-48, 12:61-63.) For example, Griffin explains that to generate a
`
`speech chat message a user activates a “push-to-talk” button on terminal 100 to
`
`“record and transmit a speech message.” (Id., 9:20-31; id., 11:42-47, 12:1-3.)
`
`Each generated speech chat message is a “voice message,” as claimed. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶97-98.) For example, Griffin explains that the chat messages may be
`
`speech (i.e., voice) chat messages. (Ex. 1005, Title, 1:7-11, 3:20-22, 3:28-30, 4:11-
`
`18, 4:27-29, 4:40-44, 4:52-56 (encoding/decoding speech using a “voice codec”),
`
`4:62-65, 5:9-15, 6:38-44, 8:47-52, 9:27-31, 10:36-43 (“speech content of an
`
`outbound voice message”), 10:53-58, 11:42-12:3, 12:24-28, 12:38-47.)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`Additionally, each speech message is an “instant” voice message, as
`
`claimed, because it is transmitted in “real-time.” (Id., 1:6-11; id., 4:11-18, 4:40-56,
`
`4:62-65, 5:2-15, 6:38-44, 6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:8-14, 8:47-52, 9:27-31, 10:36-52,
`
`11:42-47, 12:1-17; Ex. 1002, ¶99.) Indeed, Griffin’s description of real-time speech
`
`messaging is consistent with how instant messaging is described in the
`
`specification of the ’433 Patent, and was understood in the art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶17-30,
`
`45-47, 99-100; 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, 3:9-27.)7 For example, like the system/process described in
`
`the specification of the ’433 Patent (Ex. 1001, 2:35-47, 8:5-43, 11:35-63), 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 messages between available terminals 100 via
`
`server 204 (Ex. 1005, 1:6-11, 4:11-18, 6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:47-52, 9:23-31).
`
`PO may argue that a “client platform system” is a “system of the client
`
`engine which controls other components used to generate an instant voice
`
`message.” (See Ex. 1023, 18-19.) Although Petitioner does not agree with PO’s
`
`
`7 These other exhibits are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and are not
`
`relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra, footnote 2.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`interpretation, even under such an interpretation, Griffin discloses a “client
`
`platform system,” because the software (and related components) generates a
`
`speech message by controlling other components—for example, microphone 107
`
`for capturing speech data and voice codec 307 for encoding the data. (Ex. 1005,
`
`3:43-48, 4:40-48, 4:52-54, 9:20-31, 11:42-47, 12:1-3, 12:61-63, 12:67-13:2; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶101-102.)
`
`(3)
`
`“…and a messaging system for transmitting the
`instant voice message over a packet-switched
`network via a network interface;”
`
`
`The claim language and specification also describes the “messaging system”
`
`only by function, rather than by structure (e.g., hardware and/or software). For
`
`example, the claim language describes the “messaging system” as some
`
`unspecified component and/or functionality “for transmitting the instant voice
`
`message….” Similarly, the specification describes “messaging system 320” as
`
`some unspecified component and/or functionality “for messaging between the IVM
`
`client 208 and the IVM server 202.” (Ex. 1001, 12:10-13.) Griffin discloses a
`
`component and/or functionality that performs the same function as the claimed
`
`“messaging system.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶103-111.)
`
`For example, Griffin explains that software (and related components)
`
`(“instant voice messaging application”) stored and executed on terminal 100
`
`transmits the speech chat message (“instant voice message”) over packet-based
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`network 203 (“packet-switched network”) via network interface 306 (“network
`
`interface”) to server complex 204, and thus discloses the claimed “messaging
`
`system.” (Ex. 1005, 3:51-61, 4:44-54, 4:62-65, 9:20-31, 12:61-63; Ex. 1002, ¶104.)
`
`Regarding the claimed “network interface,” the specification of the ’433
`
`Patent describes a “network interface” as a generic component and/or functionality
`
`that “provide[s] connectivity to a network,” and provides an Ethernet card as an
`
`example. (Ex. 1001, 12:13-16, 13:43-46.) 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, which
`
`Griffin’s network interface 306 discloses. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶105-107.)
`
`For example, as shown in Figure 3 (below), Griffin explains that each
`
`mobile terminal 100 contains a “network interface 306” for communicating with
`
`server 204. 8 (Ex. 1005, 4:44-51; 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.)
`
`
`
`
`8 All highlighting in reproduced figures have been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`
`Network interface 306 transmits speech messages over “a packet-switched
`
`network,” as claimed. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶109-11.) For example, as shown in Figure 2
`
`(below), Griffin explains that “data packets” (e.g., messages) communicated
`
`between terminals 100 via server 204 are transmitted through communication
`
`network 203. (Ex. 1005, 3:51-65; id., 4:44-51, Fig. 2.) Network 203 “is a packet-
`
`based network,” such as “the Internet.” (Id., 3:59-65.) Additionally, as explained in
`
`the ’433 Patent, and as was well known in the art, the Internet is a packet-switched
`
`network. (Ex. 1001, 1:38-44, 1:53-56; Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-43, 111; Ex. 1024, 838-39,
`
`894, 935-36; Ex. 1027, 89-93; Ex. 1031, 24-25, 157-58.)9 Accordingly, network
`
`9 These other exhibits are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and are not
`
`relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra, footnote 2.)
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,995,433
`interface 306 is a component that provides connectivity to a packet-switched
`
`network. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶103-111.)
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`“wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays a list of one or more potential recipients for
`the instant voice message;”
`Griffin discloses these features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶112-113.) As explained in Part
`
`IX.A.1.b, Griffin discloses the claimed “instant voice messaging application” in the
`
`form of software (and related components).
`
`As shown in Figure 9, Griffin explains that the software (and related
`
`components) displays a “buddy list” having entries each representing a “buddy”
`
`that can be selected for sending a speech message (“potential recipients for the
`
`instant voice message”). (Ex. 1005, 8:39-52; id., 3:22-23, 8:15-17, 9:23-31, 9:32-
`
`33.) To initiate an instant voice message, a user selects o