IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re Patent of: Michael J. Rojas
`U.S. Patent No.:
`7,535,890 Attorney Docket No.: 19473-0372IP3
`Issue Date:
`May 19, 2009
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/740,030
`
`Filing Date:
`December 18, 2003
`
`Title:
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP
`MESSAGING
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,535,890 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IV. 
`
`I.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ............................ 1 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 1 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 1 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 4 
`D.  Service Information .................................................................................. 5 
`II. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ...................................................................................... 5 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND CHALLENGE ..................................... 6 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ................................................................................ 6 
`B.  Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................................... 6 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’890 PATENT .............................................................. 8 
`A.  Brief Description ....................................................................................... 8 
`B.  Claim Construction ................................................................................... 8 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 9 
`A.  [GROUND 1] – Claims 8, 11, 13, 45, 48, 50 are obvious over the
`Zydney-Gralla combination; 35 U.S.C. §103(a) ...................................... 9 
`B.  [GROUND 2] – Claims 7, 44 are obvious over the Zydney-Gralla-
`Bartholomew combination; 35 U.S.C. §103(a) ...................................... 32 
`C.  [GROUND 3] – Claims 22, 25, 27, 36, 38, 56, 59, 61, 67, 69 are
`obvious over the Zydney-Aggarwall-Gralla combination; 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) .................................................................................................... 40 
`D.  [GROUND 4] – Claims 21, 35, 55, 66 are obvious over the Zydney-
`Aggarwal-Gralla-Bartholomew combination; 35 U.S.C. §103(a) ......... 68 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73 
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`GOOGLE1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 to Rojas (“the ’890 patent”)
`
`GOOGLE1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’890 patent (“the Prosecution
`History”)
`
`GOOGLE1003 Declaration of Dr. Paul S. Min, Ph.D. with CV attached
`
`GOOGLE1004
`
`International Publication No. WO2001/011824 (“Zydney”)
`
`GOOGLE1005 Gralla, HOW THE INTERNET WORKS (6th Ed. 2001)
`
`GOOGLE1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,415,318 (“Aggarwal”)
`
`GOOGLE1007
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1008
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1009
`
`THE NETWORK ENCYCLOPEDIA,
`http://www.thenetworkencyclopedia.com/entry/packet-
`switching/
`
`GOOGLE1010 Nwana, SOFTWARE AGENTS: AN OVERVIEW (1996),
`http://agents.umbc.edu/introduction/ao/
`
`GOOGLE1011
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1012
`
`Levitt, INTRANETS: INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYED
`BEHIND THE FIREWALL FOR CORPORATE PRODUCTIVITY (2002),
`https://www.isoc.org/inet96/proceedings/b2/b2_3.htm (retrieved
`via https://web.archive.org/web/20021221131244/)
`
`GOOGLE1013 Wijuntunga, LOCAL AREA NETWORKS (LANS) AND THEIR
`APPLICATION IN LIBRARIES (1992),
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`http://web.simmons.edu/~chen/nit/NIT'92/349-wij.htm
`(retrieved via https://web.archive.org/web/20020430165401/)
`
`GOOGLE1014
`
`LAN VS WAN – THE BENEFITS OF EACH NETWORK TYPE,
`http://packetworks.net/lan-vs-wan-the-benefits-of-each-
`network-type/
`
`GOOGLE1015
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1016
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1017
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1018
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1019
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1020
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1021
`
`BUFFERING IN VOIP (2000),
`http://www.comtest.com/tutorials/VoIP.html
`
`GOOGLE1022
`
`Reserved
`
`GOOGLE1023
`
`Stephen W. Smith, THE SCIENTIST AND ENGINEER’S GUIDE TO
`DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING (1997-98), www.DSPguide.com
`
`GOOGLE1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,203,186
`
`GOOGLE1025
`
`P.M. Fiorini, VOICE OVER IP (VOIP) FOR ENTERPRISE
`NETWORKS: PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS AND TRAFFIC MODELS
`
`GOOGLE1026
`
`Library of Congress Online Catalog Record re HOW THE
`INTERNET WORKS (Gralla)
`
`GOOGLE1027
`
`Public Copyright Catalog Record re HOW THE INTERNET WORKS
`(Gralla)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`GOOGLE1028
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`International Standard Book Number Listing re HOW THE
`INTERNET WORKS (Gralla)
`
`GOOGLE1029 Que Corporation, Product Record re HOW THE INTERNET
`WORKS (Gralla), http://www.quepublishing.com/store/how-the-
`internet-works-9780789725820
`
`GOOGLE1030 Declaration of Michael Cohen re HOW THE INTERNET
`WORKS (Gralla)
`
`GOOGLE1031 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 (“Bartholomew”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 7-
`
`8, 11, 13, 21-22, 25, 27, 35-36, 38, 44-45, 48, 50, 55-56, 59, 61, 66-67, and 69
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (“the ’890 patent”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Google Inc. is the Petitioner. Google is a real party-in-interest in this
`
`proceeding, along with Motorola Mobility LLC, Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei
`
`Device USA, Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies
`
`Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Patent Owner filed a complaint on September 6, 2016 in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:16-cv-992) alleging that
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC infringed the ’890 patent. The complaint was served on
`
`September 13, 2016. Patent Owner also filed a complaint on September 6, 2016
`
`(Case No. 2:16-cv-994) alleging that Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei
`
`Technologies USA, Inc. infringed the ’890 patent (the complaint was also served
`
`on September 13, 2016). On October 6, 2016, Patent Owner filed an amended
`
`complaint, which eliminated Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. as a defendant and
`
`added Huawei Device Co., LTD. as a defendant.
`
`Patent Owner filed subsequent complaints in 2017 in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-465, 2:17-cv-466, 2:17-cv-467, 2:17-cv-231, 2:17-cv-
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`224, 2:17-cv-214) alleging that Google infringed the ’890 patent.1
`
`Patent Owner also filed complaints in the Eastern District of Texas alleging
`
`infringement of the ’890 patent by other parties: Avaya Inc. (2:16-cv-777);
`
`Shoretel, Inc. (2:16-cv-779); Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (2:16-cv-732);
`
`Tangome, Inc. (2:16-cv-733); Green Tomato Limited (2:16-cv-731); Facebook,
`
`Inc. (2:16-cv-728); Voxernet LLC (2:16-cv-644); Viber Media S.A.R.L. (2:16-cv-
`
`643); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (2:16-cv-777, 2:16-cv-642); Apple Inc.
`
`(2:16-cv-638); AOL Inc. (2:16-cv-722); Beetalk Private Ltd. (2:16-cv-725);
`
`Vonage Holdings Corp. and Vonage Americas, Inc. (2:16-cv-893); Telegram
`
`Messenger, LLP (2:16-cv-892); Whatsapp, Inc. (2:16-cv-645); Line Euro-Americas
`
`Corp. and Line Corporation (2:16-cv-641); Blackberry Corporation and Blackberry
`
`Limited (2:16-cv-639); HTC America, Inc. (2:16-cv-989); Kyocera America, Inc.
`
`and Kyocera Communications, Inc. (2:16-cv-990); LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(2:16-cv-991); ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. (2:16-cv-993); Kakao
`
`Corporation (2:16-cv-640); Snapchat, Inc. (2:16-cv-696); Tencent America LLC
`
`and Tencent Holdings Limited (2:16-cv-694, 2:16-cv-577); Heywire, Inc. (2:16-cv-
`
`1313); Hike Ltd. (2:17-cv-349); Kik interactive, Inc. (2:17-cv-347, 2:17-cv-481);
`
`and Hike Ltd. (2:17-cv-475, 2:17-cv-349).
`
`1 Patent Owner amended its complaints in Case Nos. 2:17-cv-214, 2:17-cv-224 and
`
`2:17-cv-231 to remove any allegations that Google infringed the ’890 patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition are two additional petitions to
`
`address a different subset of the ’890 patent’s claims. Petitioner is also
`
`concurrently petitioning for Inter Partes Review of three other patents at issue in
`
`the above-noted litigations: U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (“the ’622 patent”); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,199,747 (“the ’747 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (“the ’433
`
`patent”). The ’890, ’622, ’747, and ’433 patents are all in the same family. Other
`
`petitioners have filed IPR proceedings challenging certain claims of the ’890, ’622,
`
`’747, and ’433 patents, as well as U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723, which is also in the
`
`same patent family as the ’890 patent:
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-00220;
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-00221;
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-00222;
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-00223;
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-00224;
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-00225;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01257;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01365;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01427;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01428;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01523;
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01524;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01635;
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01611;
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01612;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01634;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01636;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01667;
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01668;
`
`Samsung Elec. America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01797;
`
`Samsung Elec. America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01798;
`
`Samsung Elec. America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01799;
`
`Samsung Elec. America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01800;
`
`Samsung Elec. America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01801;
`
`Samsung Elec. America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01802;
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01804; and
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., IPR2017-01805.
`
`Google is not a real party-in-interest to any of these above-listed IPR proceedings.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`4
`
`

`

`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Jeffrey A. Miller, Reg. No. 35,287
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel. 650-319-4538 / Fax 650-319-4938
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Michael T. Hawkins, Reg. No. 57,867
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-337-2569 / Fax 612-288-9696
`Kenneth Darby, Reg. No. 65,068
`Tel: 512-226-8126
`Kim Leung, Reg. No. 64,399
`Tel: 858-678-4713
`Patrick J. Bisenius, Reg. No. 63,893
`Tel: 612-776-2048
`Nicholas Stephens, Reg. No. 74,320
`Tel: 612-776-2018
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Please address all correspondence to the address above. Petitioner consents
`
`to electronic service by email at jeffrey.miller@apks.com and IPR19473-
`
`0372IP1@fr.com (referencing No. 19473-0372IP1 and cc’ing
`
`JMillerPTAB@apks.com; PTABInbound@fr.com, hawkins@fr.com,
`
`kdarby@fr.com, bisenius@fr.com, leung@fr.com, and nstephens@fr.com).
`
`II.
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND CHALLENGE
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’890 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following grounds.
`
`A declaration from Dr. Paul S. Min, Ph.D. is pertinent to these grounds.
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Ground 1 8, 11, 13, 45, 48, 50
`
`Obvious—Zydney and Gralla
`
`7, 44
`
`Ground 2
`
`Obvious—Zydney, Gralla, and
`Bartholomew
`
`Ground 3
`
`22, 25, 27, 36, 38, 56, 59,
`61, 67, 69
`
`Obvious—Zydney, Aggarwal, and
`Gralla
`
`21, 35, 55, 66
`
`Ground 4
`
`Obvious—Zydney, Aggarwal,
`Gralla, and Bartholomew
`
`
`Zydney (GOOGLE1004) and Aggarwal (GOOGLE1006) each qualify as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because they were published over a year before
`
`the filing date (December 18, 2003) of the ’890 Patent. Bartholomew
`
`(GOOGLE1031) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) because it is a
`
`United States patent filed by another before the filing date of the ’890 Patent.
`
`Gralla (GOOGLE1005) provides a first printing date of “September 2001”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`from the book publisher. GOOGLE1005, 7; Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software,
`
`IPR2016-01086, Paper 14 at 9 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2016). Gralla’s pre-2003
`
`publication is corroborated by: the library record (GOOGLE1026) associated with
`
`Gralla’s Library of Congress Catalog Card Number (publication in 2002), Gralla’s
`
`Copyright registration date of 2002 (GOOGLE1027), Gralla’s ISBN listing
`
`(GOOGLE1028, identifying a publication date of 2001), and the product record
`
`maintained on the publisher’s website (GOOGLE1029, confirming publication
`
`occurred in 2001). Also, testimonial evidence further corroborates that Gralla was
`
`readily accessible to the public at least as early as February of 2002.
`
`GOOGLE1030. Thus, Gralla qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C §§102(a) and
`
`102(b).
`
`The above-identified references were not cited during prosecution of the
`
`’890 patent.
`
`This Petition is not duplicative or substantially similar to other IPR petitions
`
`challenging the ’890 patent. First, while Zydney is also asserted as a primary
`
`reference in other IPR Petitions against the ’890 patent, two of which are
`
`concurrently filed by Petitioner-Google, this Petition challenges a different subset
`
`of claims than all other IPR Petitions based on Zydney. Fitbit, Inc., v. BodyMedia,
`
`Inc., IPR2016-00545, Paper 8 at 8 (PTAB Aug. 8, 2016); Ford Motor Company, v.
`
`Paice LLC et al., IPR2015-00606, Paper 14 at 8 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2015). Second,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Google is not a party to any of the earlier IPR proceedings against the ’890 patent
`
`and was more recently named in a complaint filed by Patent Owner alleging
`
`infringement of the ’890 patent. Supra, Section I. Google’s interests in having due
`
`process and a fair opportunity to be heard in this forum weigh heavily against any
`
`exercise of discretion to deny institution. Sony Mobile Communications (USA)
`
`Inc., v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00402, Paper 7 at 6 (PTAB July 1, 2015).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’890 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’890 patent describes a system for “local and global instant VoIP
`
`messaging over an IP network, such as the Internet, with PSTN support.”
`
`GOOGLE1001, 1:7-30, 2:46-48, 6:37-39. The ’890 patent concedes that “[v]oice
`
`messaging in both the VoIP and PSTN is known.” GOOGLE1001, 2:11. The ’890
`
`patent also admits that “[i]nstant text messaging is likewise known.” Id., 2:23-35.
`
`Despite the fact that VoIP/PSTN voice messaging and instant text messaging
`
`were well-known technologies, the ’890 patent incorrectly alleged that there was
`
`still a need in the art for a system “for providing instant VoIP messaging over an IP
`
`network.” GOOGLE1001, 2:26-42. As evidenced below, however, this concept of
`
`implementing instant voice messaging over the Internet was not new or innovative
`
`by 2003.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`For the purposes of IPR only, the terms of the ’890 patent are to be given
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (a “POSITA”) in view
`
`of the ’890 patent’s specification. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); GOOGLE1003, ¶¶24-25
`
`(level of ordinary skill). In light of the overwhelming similarity between Zydney
`
`and the preferred embodiments of the ’890 patent, no explicitly proposed
`
`constructions are necessary. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`[GROUND 1] – Claims 8, 11, 13, 45, 48, 50 are obvious over
`the Zydney-Gralla combination; 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`Zydney “relates to the field of packet communications, and more particularly
`
`to voice packet communication systems.” GOOGLE1004, 1:4-5. Zydney sought
`
`to improve upon well-known text-based communication systems such as email and
`
`instant messaging, which “lack[ed] a method for convenient recording, storing,
`
`exchanging, responding and listening to voices between one or more parties,
`
`independent of whether or not they are logged in to their network.” Id., 1:6-17.
`
`Zydney sought to overcome this problem by disclosing “a system and method for
`
`voice exchange and voice distribution utilizing a voice container . . . [that] can be
`
`stored, transcoded and routed to the appropriate recipients instantaneously or
`
`stored for later delivery.” Id., 1:19-22. Zydney’s technique “provides the ability
`
`to store messages both locally and centrally at the server whenever the recipient is
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`not available for a prescribed period of time.” Id., 2:3-5. Zydney’s feature of
`
`temporarily storing instant voice messages for “later delivery” when “the recipient
`
`is not available” is the exact same feature erroneously alleged to be absent from the
`
`prior art during prosecution of the ’890 patent. GOOGLE1002, 80.
`
`Zydney’s system architecture is illustrated by the functional block diagram
`
`of Figures 1 and 1A. GOOGLE1004, 10:19-11:23. The basic paradigm of
`
`Zydney’s technique involves a sender software agent (22) interfacing with a central
`
`server (24) to send a voice container (26) to a recipient software agent (28).
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶40 (referencing FIG. 1A (color coded)). Communications
`
`between the software agents (22, 28) and the central server (24) are conducted over
`
`one or more packet-switched networks, such as the Internet, intranets, and/or
`
`extranets, with traditional PSTN network support. Id., 5:3-18.
`
`In Zydney, the sender software agent (22) is configured to execute “a
`
`number of distinct modes of communication[].” GOOGLE1004, 14:19-20.
`
`Zydney describes two modes, a “pack and send mode of operation” (also referred
`
`to in Zydney as a “voice mail conversation” and a “voice instant messaging
`
`session”) where “the [entire] message is first acquired, compressed and then stored
`
`in a voice container (26)” (id., 10:19-11:23, 15:8-16:4) and a “real-time ‘intercom’
`
`[mode] which simulates a telephone call[.]” (id., 15:8-14, 16:4-15).
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶¶49, 62-63. In either mode, transmission of the instant voice
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`message may be conducted directly between software agents (22, 28) (so-called
`
`“peer-to-peer communications”) or through the central server (24).
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶51; GOOGLE1004, 1:19-22, 10:19-11:22, 12:1-23, 16:1-21,
`
`24:15-25:9, 27:12-16, 30:1-18, Figures 1, 1A, 8, 11, 14-15, 17. One featured
`
`characteristic of Zydney’s pack and send mode is “the ability to store messages
`
`both locally and centrally at the server whenever the recipient is not available for a
`
`prescribed period of time.” Id., 11:1-6.
`
`Zydney is overwhelming similar to the preferred embodiment of the ’890
`
`patent, and anticipates claims 1 and 402. Zydney discloses or suggests the
`
`conventional elements recited in claims 8 and 11 (and the correspondingly similar
`
`elements of claims 13, 45, 48, 50). And even if Zydney did not, such features were
`
`ubiquitous in prior art systems related to Internet communications, as confirmed by
`
`Gralla for purposes of achieving the known benefits articulated below.
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶¶62-73.
`
`2 Independent claim 1 and 40 are challenged in a concurrently filed petition. While
`
`not challenged herein, analysis of these claims is provided here as a predicate to
`
`challenging dependent claims 8, 11, 45, and 48 in Ground 1. The same is true of
`
`claims 6, 14, 20, 28, 34, 43, 51, 54, 62, and 65, which are not challenged herein
`
`and are analyzed only as a predicate to challenging the dependent claims addressed
`
`in Grounds 2-4 below.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`Claim 1:
`
`[1.0]:“An instant voice messaging system for delivering instant
`messages over a packet-switched network, the system comprising”
`Even if this preamble were treated as a limitation (which it is not), Zydney
`
`discloses the recited system. GOOGLE1003, ¶44. Like the ’890 patent, Zydney’s
`
`disclosure broadly relates to “the field of packet communications, and more
`
`particularly to voice packet communication systems.” GOOGLE1004, 1:4-5.
`
`Within this field, Zydney discloses “a system and method for voice exchange and
`
`voice distribution utilizing a voice container.” Id., 1:19-20, 1:20-2:10. Zydney
`
`further explains that this system and method provides “the ability to communicate
`
`spontaneously, in the user’s own voice, without the limitations of written
`
`communications for natural expression.” Id., 10:11-14. This results in “a voice
`
`intercom system with instant messaging, distributed over the Internet.” Id.,
`
`10:14-18; 1:20-22. Before 2003, a POSITA would have known that the Internet is
`
`a packet-switched network. GOOGLE1003, ¶44 (citing GOOGLE1009, 1;
`
`GOOGLE1005, 336). Indeed, the ’890 patent itself admits this fact.
`
`GOOGLE1001, 1:6-11.
`
`[1.1.a]:“a client connected to the network”
`Zydney discloses Element [1.1.a]. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶45-47. Zydney
`
`discloses a “client” in the form of “a software agent with a user interface
`
`[operating] in conjunction with a central server to send, receive and store messages
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`using voice containers.” GOOGLE1004, 1:19-2:10, 10:11-11:22. The software
`
`agent described by Zydney is connected to the Internet—i.e., the packet-switched
`
`network. Id., 14:2-5 (describing a software agent as an “Internet compatible
`
`appliance”); Figure 1A; GOOGLE1003, ¶45.
`
`Zydney teaches that its “software agent” is “a component of software and/or
`
`hardware which is capable of acting exactingly in order to accomplish tasks on
`
`behalf of its user.” GOOGLE1003, ¶46 (citing GOOGLE1010, 2; GOOGLE1004,
`
`10:3-9)). Zydney’s disclosure that the agent can be a “wireless handheld
`
`computer” or “digital telephone” is similar to the ’890 patent’s client, which can
`
`be “a VoIP softphone.” Compare GOOGLE1004, 11:14-22; with GOOGLE1001,
`
`6:61-7:12; GOOGLE1003, ¶47 (“digital phone” is descriptive of a “VoIP phone”).
`
`[1.1.b] “the client selecting one or more recipients, generating an
`instant voice message therefor, and transmitting the selected
`recipients and the instant voice message therefor over the network”
`Zydney discloses Element [1.1.b]. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶48-53. The client or
`
`“software agent” of Zydney “SELECTS ONE OR MORE RECIPIENTS” for an
`
`instant voice message. GOOGLE1004, Figures 4, 6. For example, with reference
`
`to Figure 2, Zydney explains that the software agent has functionality to “address
`
`the recipient(s).” Id., 13:1-6. More specifically, Zydney teaches that an
`
`“originator”—i.e., a user—“selects one or more intended recipients from a list of
`
`names[.]” Id., 14:17-19.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Regarding “generating an instant voice message,” Zydney’s system allows
`
`users to “digitally record[] messages for one or more recipients using a
`
`microphone-equipped device and the software agent.” GOOGLE1004, 16:1-4.
`
`Zydney further describes a “pack and send mode of operation” of the software
`
`agent “in which the message is first acquired, compressed and then stored in a
`
`voice container[.]” Id., 10:19-11:3, 12:1-13:6, 14:2-5; GOOGLE1003, ¶49.
`
`“The term ‘voice containers’ as used throughout [Zydney] refers to a
`
`container object that contains no methods, but contains voice data or voice data
`
`and voice data properties.” GOOGLE1004, 12:1-17. A POSITA would have
`
`recognized that a “container object” containing voice data is a “voice message.”
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶49. Moreover, as discussed (supra, analysis of Element [1.0]),
`
`Zyndey is directed to distributing voice containers “instantaneously.”
`
`GOOGLE1004, 1:20-22, 10:11-18. Thus, Zydney’s “voice containers” are the
`
`claimed “instant voice messages.” GOOGLE1003, ¶49.
`
`The software agent of Zydney also transmits the selected recipients and the
`
`instant voice message therefor over the network, as claimed. GOOGLE1003, ¶50.
`
`For example, Zydney explains that the software agent can “send, receive and store
`
`messages using voice containers[.]” GOOGLE1004, 10:19-11:1. More
`
`specifically, Zydney states: “Voice data is transmitted to the server in a format
`
`provided by the agent,” and “[t]he voice data is transmitted in a voice container.”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Id., 12:1-6. Thus, Zydney discloses “transmitting . . . the instant voice message.”
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶¶50-51.
`
`Zydney also discloses “transmitting the selected recipients.”
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶¶52-53. In fact, Zydney’s teaching is nearly identical to the
`
`preferred embodiment of the ’890 patent. Id. (citing GOOGLE1001, 7:55-61,
`
`8:16-19, 13:32-65, 8:42-48). Zydney describes “[a] registration server [that]
`
`assigns the software agent a unique address,” which is “maintained in a data store”
`
`and “used for all communications from the software agent to the server, it
`
`components [sic] and between other software agents.” GOOGLE1004, 23:18-24:2.
`
`Zydney then elaborates further concerning the contents of the “voice container,”
`
`stating that it includes “one or more recipient’s codes [sic].” Id., 23:1-12, Figure 3.
`
`The recipients’ codes uniquely identify the selected recipients, so that the voice
`
`container can be appropriately forwarded by the central server to the “destination
`
`address” of the recipients. Id., Figure 7 (Step 1.1.5); GOOGLE1003, ¶53. Thus,
`
`Zydney teaches that its software agents transmit the “selected recipients,” as
`
`claimed, because its voice containers contain “recipient codes” for addressing
`
`recipients. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶52-53.
`
`As for transmissions from the software agent, Zydney states that “[t]he voice
`
`container will be sent using standard TCP/IP transport.” GOOGLE1004, 23:11-12,
`
`10:11-18, 11:1-6, 12:1-23, 13:1-6, 14:2-7. As Zydney notes, “Transaction Control
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) is the communications standard between hosts
`
`on the Internet.” Id., 5:15-18. Thus, Zydney discloses “transmitting . . . over the
`
`network.” GOOGLE1003, ¶50.
`
`[1.2.a]:“a server connected to the network”
`Zydney discloses Element [1.2.a]. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶54-55. For example,
`
`Zydney describes a “central server” that “in conjunction with the software agent
`
`controls, stores and switches the voice containers to the appropriate recipients.”
`
`GOOGLE1004, 14:6-13. Zydney’s central server is connected to the Internet—
`
`i.e., the packet-switched network. Id., 24:21-23, 28:10-18, Figure 1A.
`
`[1.2.b]:“the server receiving the selected recipients and the instant
`voice message therefor, and delivering the instant voice message to
`the selected recipients over the network”
`Zydney discloses Element [1.2.b]. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶56-58. As discussed
`
`(supra, Element [1.1.b]), Zydney’s “[v]oice data is transmitted to the server . . . by
`
`the agent . . . in a voice container.” GOOGLE1004, 12:1-17. As also discussed
`
`(supra, Element [1.1.b]), the “voice container” includes a digitally recorded voice
`
`message and recipient codes for addressing recipients. Id., 23:1-12, Figures 3, 7.
`
`Indeed, the server’s functionality to receive voice containers and selected
`
`recipients is stated expressly in the flowchart of Figure 8. GOOGLE1003, ¶56. At
`
`Step 1.2.2 of Figure 8, the central server “COMMENCE[S] POLLING OF THE
`
`USER’S COMPUTER” in search of “voice containers in the reserved temporary
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`storage,” and then, at Step 1.2.3, “UPLOAD[S] THE VOICE CONTAINER(S)
`
`TO A CENTRAL FILE SERVER” before facilitating delivery to the recipients at
`
`Steps 1.2.5 and 1.2.6. GOOGLE1004, Figure 8. When the server is “uploading
`
`the voice container(s)” it is “receiving . . . the instant voice message” contained in
`
`the voice container, just as claimed. Id., 12:1-17 (“transmitted to the server”);
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶56. Zydney’s server “receiv[es] the selected recipients” in the
`
`same way because the uploaded voice containers contain “recipient codes” for
`
`addressing recipients. Supra, analysis of Element [1.1.b]; GOOGLE1004, 23:1-12,
`
`23:18-24:2, Figures 3, 7. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶56, 53.
`
`Zydney further describes a “transcoding server” having “the ability to
`
`transcode the [received] voice container that has been recorded [by the software
`
`agent] with the default codec.” GOOGLE1004, 28:1-8, 27:1-6, 12:13-23.
`
`Zydney’s “central server” further includes a “message server,” which provides a
`
`“repository for messages sent to software agents that are not logged onto the
`
`system.” GOOGLE1004, 25:1-9. These and other3 server components perform
`
`various functions/operations on voice containers received from software agents.
`
`GOOGLE1003, ¶39. Thus, Zydney discloses “the server receiving the selected
`
`3 GOOGLE1004, 24:11-25:9, 30:11-18 (describing proxy server components
`
`receiving and distributing instant voice messages when software agents are behind
`
`a firewall).
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 19473-0372IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`recipients and the instant voice message therefor.”
`
`After receiving the instant voice message, the central server can deliver the
`
`instant voice message to the selected recipients. GOOGLE1003, ¶¶57-58 (citing
`
`GOOGLE1004, Abstract, 2:3-5, 13:12-18, 14:6-13, 16:15-21, 22:12-20, 25:1-9,
`
`30:6-7); see also infra Element [1.4]. Again, this functionality is clearly
`
`demonstrated in Figure 8, which an embodiment “for voice exchange and voice
`
`distribution with respect to the central server.” GOOGLE1004, 34:20-22, Figure
`
`8 (Step 1.2.5 (notifying recipient of instant voice messages)) (Step 1.2.6
`
`(downloading instant voice messages to the recipient)), 14:6-13, 27:7-11.
`
`While Zydney also discloses certain instances where its system can facilitate
`
`the exchange of voice containers directly between software agents (so-called “peer-
`
`to-peer communications”), such instances “depend on the activities of both parties,
`
`the intended length of conversation and the quality of the communications path
`
`between the two individuals, which is generally not controlled by either party.”
`
`GOOGLE1004, 15:8-14. Thus, as discussed, in many cases, “the voice containers
`
`are delivered to [and received by] the centr