Filed on behalf of:
`Google Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 1
`
`
`Date: September 7, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`
`IPR2017-02056
`_________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,134,600
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... iv
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION AND MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER
`37 C.F.R § 42.8 ............................................................................................. 1
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER § 42.104(A) ................................... 4
`II.
`III. THE ‘600 PATENT AND THE FIELD OF ART ......................................... 4
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER § 42.104(B) .................... 6
`A. Overview Of The Grounds For This Petition ...................................... 7
`
`The Earliest Effective Filing Date Of The Claims Subject To This
`B.
`Petition ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Status Of The References .................................................. 11
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art .................................................. 12
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................. 12
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1 – ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 8, AND 9 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. §102(b) BY NICHOLAS. ................................................................ 14
`A.
`‘Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 15
`
`B. Claim 2 ............................................................................................. 22
`
`C. Claim 3 ............................................................................................. 23
`
`D. Claim 4 ............................................................................................. 23
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. 25
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. 25
`
`G. Claim 9 ............................................................................................. 26
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`VII. GROUND 2 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 10, 12 AND 13 UNDER
`U.S.C. § 103(A) IN VIEW OF NICHOLAS AND NAIR. .......................... 26
`A. Claim 10 ........................................................................................... 27
`
`Page
`
`B. Claims 12 and 13 .............................................................................. 28
`
`VIII. GROUND 3 -- OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 10, 12 AND 13 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) IN VIEW OF NICHOLAS AND KUSAKA. .................... 30
`IX. GROUND 4 -- OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 10 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A) IN VIEW OF NICHOLAS AND KHEDOURI. .............................. 32
`X. GROUND 5 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 12 AND 13 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) IN VIEW OF NICHOLAS AND MORRIS. ..................... 33
`XI. GROUND 6 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-5, 8-10, 12 AND 13
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) IN VIEW OF INOUE AND NAIR. ............... 33
`A. Claim 1 ............................................................................................. 34
`
`B. Claim 2 ............................................................................................. 44
`
`C. Claim 3 ............................................................................................. 45
`
`D. Claim 4 ............................................................................................. 46
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. 47
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. 48
`
`G. Claim 9 ............................................................................................. 48
`
`H. Claim 10 ........................................................................................... 48
`
`I.
`
`Claims 12 and 13 .............................................................................. 49
`
`XII. GROUND 7 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
`IN VIEW OF INOUE, NAIR AND NARAYANASWAMI. ....................... 50
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`XIII. GROUND 8 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-5, 8, AND 9 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) IN VIEW OF UMEDA AND INOUE. ............................. 51
`A. Claim 1 ............................................................................................. 52
`
`Page
`
`B. Claim 2 ............................................................................................. 58
`
`C. Claim 3 ............................................................................................. 59
`
`D. Claim 4 ............................................................................................. 59
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................. 60
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................. 60
`
`G. Claim 9 ............................................................................................. 60
`
`XIV. GROUND 9 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 10, 12 AND 13 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) BY UMEDA IN VIEW OF INOUE AND KUSAKA....... 61
`XV. GROUND 10 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 10 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A) BY UMEDA IN VIEW OF INOUE AND KHEDOURI. ................ 62
`XVI. GROUND 11 – OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 12 AND 13 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) BY UMEDA IN VIEW OF INOUE AND MORRIS. ....... 62
`XVII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................... 63
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Ex. No. Brief Description
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600 to Clemente (“the ‘600 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Alleged Priority Document: U.S. Provisional Application Serial No.
`60/702,470
`
`Alleged Priority Document: Prosecution History of U.S. Application
`Serial No. 11/484,373, now Pat. No. 7,633,524
`
`Alleged Priority Document: Prosecution History of U.S. Application
`Serial No. 12/637,277, now Pat. No. 7,907,172
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘600 Patent, U.S. Application Serial No.
`13/037,303
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133668 to Nicholas, III,
`provisional application filed September 12 2002, utility application filed
`September 12, 2003, and published July 8, 2004 (“Nicholas”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0127208 to Nair, et al.,
`utility application filed August 4, 2003 and published July 1, 2004
`(“Nair”)
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109063 to Kusaka, et al.,
`filed May 27, 2003 and published June 10, 2004 (“Kusaka”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0008256 to Khedouri, et
`al., provisional application filed October 1 2003, utility application filed
`September 29, 2004, and published Jan. 12, 2006 (“Khedouri”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0143684 to Morris, filed
`December 29, 2004 and published June 29, 2006 (“Morris”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109066 to Inoue, et al.,
`filed December 3, 2003 and published June 10, 2004 (“Inoue”)
`
`1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0150228 to Umeda, et al.,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`filed August 10, 2001 and published October 17, 2002 (“Umeda”)
`
`1013
`
`Narayanaswami, et al., “Expanding the Digital Camera’s Reach,”
`Computer, Vol. 37, Issue 12 (IEEE Dec. 2004), p. 65
`(“Narayanaswarmi”)
`
`1014 Declaration of Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Google Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”), in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311-
`
`319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, hereby petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 2,
`
`3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600 to Clemente et al. (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ‘600 Patent”). The ‘600 Patent issued on March 13, 2012 from U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/037,303, filed February 28, 2011, entitled “Internet
`
`Direct Device.” Ex. 1001 (cover); Ex. 1005 (prosecution history). The ‘600
`
`Patent’s application is a continuation of U.S. Application Serial No. 12/637,277,
`
`now Pat. No. 7,907,172 (Ex. 1004), which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`Serial No. 11/484,373, now Pat. No. 7,633,524 (Ex. 1003), and asserts that it is
`
`entitled to the effective filing date of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No.
`
`60/702,470 (Ex. 1002). See Ex. 1001 (cover). According to USPTO-PAIR records,
`
`the ‘600 Patent is assigned to Alex Is The Best, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`I.
`
`PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION AND MANDATORY NOTICES
`UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge the fee set out in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and any additional fees due, to Deposit Account No. 10-
`
`0435, with reference to file number 51783-259742.
`
`Google Inc. is the Petitioner and a real party-in-interest in this proceeding.
`
`This petition is also being filed by Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. and Lenovo
`
`(United States) Inc., which are real parties in interest in this proceeding. Motorola
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Mobility, LLC, Huawei Devices USA Inc., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc.
`
`are additional real parties in interest.
`
`To Petitioner’s knowledge, Patent Owner has asserted the ’600 Patent in past
`
`or ongoing litigation captioned Alex is the Best, LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., Case
`
`No. 1:16-cv-00769 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. Huawei Device (Dongguan)
`
`Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00770 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. Lenovo
`
`Holding Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00771-RGA (DED); Alex is the
`
`Best, LLC v. TCT Mobile, Inc., et al., 1:16-Cv-00772 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`v. Boost Mobile, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-01782 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v.
`
`Kyocera Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01783 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-01784 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. T-
`
`Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01785 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v.
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01786 (DED); Alex is the
`
`Best, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01787 (DED);
`
`Alex is the Best, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01722 (DED);
`
`Alex is the Best, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, Case No. 1:13-cv-01723
`
`(DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. Blackberry Limited f/k/a Research in Motion
`
`Limited, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01724 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. HTC
`
`Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01725 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. LG
`
`Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01726 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v.
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01727 (DED; and Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`v. ZTE Corporation, et al., Case No. 1;13-cv-01728 (DED) (the “Litigations”).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner is aware of the following issued, expired, abandoned
`
`or pending applications and cases that have been alleged by Patent Owner to be
`
`related to the ‘600 Patent: Provisional Application Serial No. 60/702,470 filed on
`
`07-26-2005, which is expired; U.S. Application Serial No. 11/484,373 filed on 07-
`
`11-2006, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 12/637,277 filed on 12-
`
`14-2009, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 13/415,346 filed on 03-
`
`08-2012, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 13/925,498 filed on 06-
`
`24-2013, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 14/053,600 filed on 10-
`
`15-2013, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 14/578,403 filed on 12-
`
`20-2014, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 14/948,486 filed on 11-
`
`23-2015, which is patented; and U.S. Application Serial No. 15/295,940 filed on
`
`10-17-2016, which is pending.
`
`Petitioner identifies the following lead and back-up counsel in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joshua P. Larsen (Reg. No. 62,761)
`Barnes &Thornburg LLP
`11 S Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`joshua.larsen@btlaw.com
`(317) 236-1313
`
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Jeff M. Barron (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`Barnes &Thornburg LLP
`11 S Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`jeff.barron@btlaw.com
`(317) 236-1313
`Back-Up Counsel
`Steven D. Shipe (Reg. No. 71,944)
`Barnes &Thornburg LLP
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
`Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`steven.shipe@btlaw.com
`(202) 289-1313
`
`
`Petitioner agrees to service by electronic mail to the addresses of each of its
`
`
`
`designated counsel
`
`(joshua.larsen@btlaw.com,
`
`jeff.barron@btlaw.com, and
`
`steven.shipe@btlaw.com).
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER § 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘600 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. THE ‘600 PATENT AND THE FIELD OF ART
`
`The ‘600 Patent, entitled “INTERNET DIRECT DEVICE,” “relates to an
`
`integrated Internet camera and/or system that is simple to install, operate and
`
`maintain[].” Ex. 1001, col. 1:15-17; see also Ex. 1014, Decl. of Dr. Madisetti ,
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ph.D., ¶¶34-48 (“Madisetti”). The system “seamlessly and automatically
`
`transmits, stores and/or archives still images, video and/or audio to and from a web
`
`site service/monitor center over the Internet using one or more integrated Internet
`
`cameras.” Id., col. 1:19-22. Although the ‘600 Patent acknowledges that Internet
`
`devices that can transmit images to and from the Internet are not new, the
`
`applicants asserted that prior art cameras needed additional devices to connect to
`
`the Internet (e.g., a personal computer), required a “network” card that did not
`
`provide “two-way access to the image file,” and did not have the capability to
`
`“seamlessly upload and download” images via the Internet. Id., col. 1:39-67, Fig. 1
`
`(prior art).
`
`The ‘600 Patent’s disclosure primarily concerns the use of a camera to
`
`upload or download images to and from a “website archive and review center
`
`(‘WSARC’).” Id., col. 2:9–col. 3:7. The WSARC comprises a “web server and one
`
`or more databases” that are accessible via the Internet. Id., col. 3:23-25 & Fig. 2
`
`(3000). In some embodiments, the ‘600 Patent describes its Internet direct device
`
`as containing a camera to capture still or video images and connecting to the
`
`WSARC via one of a variety of different modes of communication, including “land
`
`line, DSL, cable, satellite, wireless network, cellular, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and the like.”
`
`Id., col. 3:25-32. “Preferably, the IDC 2000 [Internet direct camera] connects to the
`
`Internet via a primary mode of communication and switches over to a secondary
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`mode of communication if the IDC 2000 detects a failure in the primary mode of
`
`communication.” Id., col. 3:32-36. This automatic switching need not occur
`
`immediately; indeed, the ‘600 Patent describes scenarios where the network
`
`connection is lost and images are stored for later transmission. Id., col. 4:38-58.
`
`The challenged claims (1-5, 8-10, 12 and 13) generally concern the function
`
`of transmitting images to the Internet using an “Internet direct device” and using a
`
`different Internet direct device to review the images. Notably, although the ‘600
`
`Patent’s specification describes using a WSARC to also be part of the claimed
`
`function of sending and receiving images, the challenged claims require only an
`
`Internet Direct Device and omit any mention of a WSARC. See id., claims 1-5, 8-
`
`10, 12 and 13. Thus, the device as claimed in the ‘600 Patent does not require the
`
`use of a WSARC. Rather, the claims include cameras and other devices that
`
`perform their recited elements both with and without the use of a WSARC.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER § 42.104(B)
`
`Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
`
`9, 10, 12 and 13 of the ‘600 Patent on the grounds below, and requests that each of
`
`the challenged claims be found unpatentable Included below is an explanation of
`
`unpatentability under the identified grounds, indicating where each claim element
`
`is found in the prior art.
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`A. Overview Of The Grounds For This Petition
`
`Ground Challenged Claims
`
`Statutory Ground and Prior Art
`
`Ground 1
`
`1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e) by
`Nicholas
`
`Ground 2
`
`10, 12, 13
`
`Ground 3
`
`10, 12, 13
`
`Ground 4
`
`10
`
`Ground 5
`
`12 and 13
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Nicholas and Nair
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Nicholas and Kusaka
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Nicholas and Khedouri
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Nicholas and Morris
`
`Ground 6
`
`1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,
`10, 12 and 13
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Inoue and Nair
`
`Ground 7
`
`2
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Inoue, Nair and Narayanswami
`
`Ground 8
`
`1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Umeda and Inoue
`
`Ground 9
`
`10, 12 and 13
`
`Ground 10 10
`
`Ground 11 12 and 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Umeda, Inuoe and Kusaka
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Umeda, Inuoe and Khedouri
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Umeda, Inuoe and Morris
`
`As set forth below, each of the foregoing references constitutes prior art to
`
`the ‘600 Patent under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) or (e).
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`B.
`
`The Earliest Effective Filing Date Of The Claims Subject To This
`Petition
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the ‘600
`
`Patent are entitled to an effective filing date of no earlier than July 11, 2006, which
`
`is the filing date of the earliest related utility application, U.S. Application Serial
`
`No. 11/484,373, now U.S. Patent No. 7,633,524 (“‘373 Application”). Ex. 1001,
`
`(cover, “Related U.S. Application Data”). None of these claims are entitled to the
`
`benefit of the earlier filing date of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No.
`
`60/702,470 (the “Provisional”), which is also identified as a related application on
`
`the cover of the ‘600 Patent. Id.
`
`“It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit
`
`of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier
`
`application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA,
`
`Inc.,
`
`522
`
`F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297
`
`(Fed.Cir.1995)). To support the issued claims, the Provisional’s disclosure must
`
`“convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
`
`sought, [the applicant] was in possession of the invention” in the claims as issued.
`
`Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed.Cir.1991) (emphasis in
`
`original). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”
`
`PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (citation omitted). The written description of the
`
`earlier application must instead “actually or inherently disclose the claim element.”
`
`Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ‘600 Patent. It contains two
`
`elements that are not described in the Provisional. First, claim 1 requires that the
`
`claimed Internet direct device “automatically connects to said communications
`
`network on power-up using one of a plurality of available modes of connection”
`
`using a primary mode of connection. Claim 1 then requires that the Internet direct
`
`device “automatically switches to another available mode of connection when …
`
`said primary mode of connection to said communications network is unavailable.”
`
`The Provisional does not describe either of these elements of issued claim 1.
`
`Madisetti, ¶¶49-55. The Provisional describes an “Internet Direct Camera (IDC)”
`
`that transmits images to a “Web Site Storage Center (WSSC)” on the Internet. Ex.
`
`1002, p. 1. It describes “[s]ix ways to transmit data to internet [sic]”:
`
`a) Cable (with local wireless to PC or wired directly)
`
`b) T-Line (with local wireless to PC or wired directly)
`
`c) DSL (with local wireless to PC or wired directly)
`
`d) WiMax or Wi-Fi wireless direct to internet
`
`e) Satellite wireless transmission direct to internet
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`f) Cell phone number direct to WSSC
`
`And any combo of above as primary with another as secondary
`
`backup
`
`Ex. 1002, pp. 1-2.
`
`
`
`Missing from the Provisional is any description of a device, system or
`
`method that automatically connects to the Internet or any other communication
`
`network “on power-up” using any one of its disclosed ways of transmitting data, as
`
`claim 1 requires. Madisetti, ¶53.
`
`The Provisional also fails to describe any apparatus, system or method for
`
`“automatically” switching to another mode of communication when the primary
`
`mode of communication is unavailable. Id., ¶54. The Provisional references only
`
`using a secondary “way” of transmission as a “backup,” but does not describe a
`
`device that automatically switches to a backup. Id. In the absence of a disclosure of
`
`automatic switching, the switch to a backup would have been done by the user as
`
`part of a manual process. Id.
`
`Thus, the Provisional does not “reasonably convey to the artisan that the
`
`inventor had possession” of either (a) automatic connection on power-up or (b)
`
`automatic switching to another mode of communication when the primary mode of
`
`communication is unavailable. Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`F.3d 1291, 1302–03 (Fed.Cir.1999). Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12
`
`and 13 are not entitled to the Provisional’s filing date.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art Status Of The References
`
`
`
`Nicholas (Ex. 1006) published on July 8, 2004. It is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Nair (Ex. 1007) published on July 1, 2004. It is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`
`
`Kusaka (Ex. 1008) published on June 10, 2004. It is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`
`
`Khedouri’s (Ex. 1009) utility application was filed September 29, 2004. It is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`Morris’s (Ex. 1010) utility application was filed on December 29, 2004. It is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Inoue (Ex. 1011) published on June 10, 2004. It is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Umeda (Ex. 1012) published on October 17, 2002. It is prior art under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Narayanaswarmi (Ex. 1013) published no later than December, 2004. It is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`D. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`At the time of the alleged invention,1 one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`field with which the ‘600 patent pertains would have had at least a Bachelor’s
`
`Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or Computer Engineering, or
`
`equivalent experience, and 1-2 years of experience in the field of computer
`
`networking and/or telecommunications. Alternatively, an individual without a
`
`bachelor’s degree, but with additional years of experience developing and
`
`deploying voice, video, and call processing applications would also be a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Madisetti, ¶¶56-59.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`Each term of an unexpired patent claim in inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For the purposes of this Petition and
`
`
`1 The level of ordinary skill in the art would not vary if the time of the alleged
`invention is assumed to be within one year of the filing of the Provisional July 26,
`2005, including the date of the utility application filing (July 11, 2006). Madisetti,
`
`¶57.
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”), Petitioner provides the
`
`following claim term interpretations:2
`
`The term “Internet direct device” (“IDD”) includes at least a device that is
`
`capable of connecting to the Internet without the necessity of connecting to another
`
`device, such as a PC. Madisetti, ¶¶37-40.
`
`At this time, Petitioner believes that none of its unpatentability positions
`
`requires a construction of any other claim term, and that such terms should take
`
`their term’s plain meaning. Petitioner also takes the position that the preambles of
`
`the challenged claims are not limiting as they are not necessary to give life to the
`
`claim and merely state intended purpose. Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618
`
`F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
`
`Schering–Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Petitioner may explain the scope of the plain meaning of any claim term to
`
`the extent that Patent Owner takes a position on claim scope that appears
`
`materially different from its plain meaning. Petitioner also reserves the right to
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves all rights to challenge the basis of patentability of the claims of
`the ‘600 Patent on grounds which are not available for consideration under inter
`
`partes review at this time, for example but without limitation, standards for
`
`claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`assert additional or alternate claim construction positions under the differing
`
`standards for claim interpretation that apply to, e.g., proceedings in District Court.
`
`VI. GROUND 1 – ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 8, AND 9 UNDER 35
`U.S.C. §102(b) BY NICHOLAS.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the ‘600 Patent include Intenet devices that
`
`transmit and receive images over a “communications network.” The claims are not
`
`limited to transmission of still images but also include devices that transmit and
`
`receive “audio and video images to and from other Internet direct devices,” e.g.,
`
`provide for video calls and video conferencing. E.g., Ex. 1001, col. 8:37-40 (claim
`
`5). The claimed device connects to a “communications network” on power up
`
`using a “primary mode of connection.” The device switches to “another mode of
`
`connection” should the primary mode of connection be unavailable.
`
`The Nicholas (Ex. 1006) prior art reference, which was not before the
`
`Examiner during prosecution, describes this claimed technology. Madisetti, ¶¶81-
`
`88, 627-630, 651-70. Nicholas discloses an “end user device” that allows seamless
`
`roaming across networks for the transmission of video images, audio, text and
`
`other multimedia via the Internet. In one example, Nicholas’s end-user device can
`
`use a primary mode to connect to a communications network (e.g., a wired Local
`
`Access Network or “LAN”), to which it can automatically connect on power-up.
`
`When the primary mode is unavailable, Nicholas automatically switches to another
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`mode of communication—e.g., a wireless network—to maintain its connection. As
`
`discussed below, Nicholas anticipates each of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the
`
`‘600 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`‘Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites as follows:
`
`An Internet direct device comprising
`
`This preamble is not limiting; nonetheless, Nicholas teaches this element.
`
`Nicholas discloses an “end user device 100” defined as “any device capable of
`
`communicating data to or from a data communication network in accordance with
`
`one or more wired and/or wireless communication protocols.” Ex. 1006, ¶0019.
`
`The device can include a camera and microphone, among other things. Id., ¶¶0024,
`
`0032-0033; see also id., Fig. 1 (120). The data communication network includes an
`
`“Internet connection, including but not limited to cable modems, DSL, and ISP” as
`
`well as a variety of other wired and wireless networks. Id.; see also id., ¶0020, Fig.
`
`1 (100); Madisetti, ¶652.
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Video Camera and Mic
`built-in/option
`
`j
`GbE, 6. 0,/ / X, B T ,,,,,,,,,,
`built-in
`,,,,,,,,,,,,,
`
`丨 气
`
`Wireless BT
`Headset Options
`
`GPRS built-in or
`co⻔门 nects via GT
`GPRS phone
`
`I D O
`
`$ % & ()+ ,
`
`- - -t!-•-•. Jr/ ! -*-0
`
`1 - 0
`3)$
`
`i屢 $f
`
`#
`
`4 一!-$
`!);!— !
`I-0•
`一 -= > $‘，$/一 -
`
`$i
`*/
`
`$•!
`--'
`龜雩
` '
`••$•#
`
`Silent Ring Light
`Message Waiting しight
`
`ク*) !'-'-:•
`
`/ ! !
`
`_r.11-':. !i ! 935 315»1l5»»
`
`VoIP handset connected to
`network with GbE switch
`
`Quick dock/undock
`in any state
`
`Windows XP Mobile Client
`(Notebook or Tablet)
`
`Smart Power system always
`maintains enough power to
`keep secure comms link alive
`(virtual off)
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1.
`
`an imaging system to capture still or video images;
`
`Nicholas’s end user device 100 (an Internet direct device) includes an
`
`imaging system that can capture at least video images: “Exemplary end user device
`
`100 further comprises … an optional built-in video camera and microphone for
`
`enabling videoconferencing and the like.” Ex. 1006, ¶¶0024, 0032-0033; see also
`
`id., Fig. 1 (120); Madisetti, ¶653.
`
`a microprocessor to transmit said captured still or video images to
`
`another Internet direct device upon image capture, and receive still or
`
`video
`
`images
`
`from said other Internet direct device over a
`
`communications network;
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,134,600
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Nicholas’s end user device 100 includes a microprocessor: “As shown in
`
`FIG. 3, the example end user devices includes a processor 302 for executing
`
`software routines in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.” Ex.
`
`1006, ¶0037 & Fig. 3. The microprocessor controls a plurality of “communication
`
`interfaces 324a-324n” that “permit data, including but not limited to voice, video
`
`and/or computer data, to be transferred between the end user device 100 and
`
`external devices[.]” Id., ¶0041; see also id., ¶¶0024, 0032-0033 & Fig. 1 (120).
`
`Nicholas further describes how its end user device 100 can provide VoIP calling,
`
`video calls, and videoconferencing (id., ¶¶0032-0034), all of which are executed by
`
`the microprocessor (id., ¶0037). The “end user device 100” is “capable of
`
`communicating data to or from a data communication network in accordance with
`
`one or more wired and/or wireless communication protocols.” Ex. 1006, ¶0019. At
`
`least video images are transmitted under the control of the microprocessor upon
`
`image capture, and video images are received from another Internet direct device,
`
`in order to implement the described video-calling and videoconferencing system.
`
`Id., ¶¶0032-0034, 0037, 0041; Madisetti, ¶654.
`
`and wherein the Internet direct device automatically connects to said
`
`communications network on power-up using one of a plurality of
`
`available modes of connection, which is designated as a primary
`
`mode of connection,
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. P