IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Rojas
`In re Patent of:
`
`8,199,747
`U.S. Pat. No.:
`June 12, 2012
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/398,076
`Filing Date:
`March 4, 2009
`Title:
` SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP
`MESSAGING
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 19473-0373IP1
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL S. MIN, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 3
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 3
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 8
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 8
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 9
`C. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 11
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 12
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 13
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’747 PATENT ..................................................... 15
`A. Subject Matter Overview............................................................................. 15
`B.
`File History of the ’747 Patent .................................................................... 17
`VII. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’747 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE .......... 19
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES................................................................................................ 20
`IX. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY (CLAIMS 1-6, 8, 12-13)..................................... 21
`X. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF GRALLA (CLAIMS 2-6, 8, 12-13)
` ......................................................................................................................... 60
`XI. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF GRALLA AND OKANO
`(CLAIMS 7, 9-11, 14-15) ............................................................................... 84
`XII. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF GRALLA AND EREKSON
`(CLAIMS 7, 10) ............................................................................................107
`XIII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS .........................................................................120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Paul S. Min of St. Louis, Missouri, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Google Inc. (“Google” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Google is requesting that
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceedings of U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 (“the ’747 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001).
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’747
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Google. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’747 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving
`
`the ’747 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1982, a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1984, and a Ph.D.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering in 1987, all from the University of Michigan in
`
`Ann Arbor. All of my degrees from the University of Michigan are with
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`distinction. In addition, I received several academic awards, including a best
`
`graduate student award and a best teaching assistant award, during my study at the
`
`University Michigan. I also received a best paper award in a major international
`
`symposium for the paper based on my Ph.D. thesis.
`
`
`
`After obtaining my Ph.D., I worked at Bellcore (now Telcordia
`
`Technologies, Inc.) in New Jersey from August 1987 until August 1990, as a lead
`
`engineer in major projects for the Regional Bell Operating Companies. In these
`
`projects, I was responsible for developing and analyzing next generation
`
`technologies to be incorporated in Regional Bell Operating Companies’
`
`communication networks, including transmission and switching technologies based
`
`on wireless and optical media and a variety of service and application
`
`infrastructures.
`
`
`
`In September 1990, I joined the faculty at Washington University in
`
`St. Louis. I was an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering until June 1996,
`
`and then was promoted to an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering with
`
`tenure. Since July 2002, I have been an Associate Professor of Electrical and
`
`Systems Engineering at Washington University.
`
` My research activities at Washington University have focused on
`
`multi-media, high-speed communication and computing, including high
`
`performance switches and routers used in the Internet and in various types of local
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`area networks (“LANs”). I have received grants from the National Science
`
`Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Project Agency. I have also received numerous grants and
`
`contracts from companies and organizations around the world, and have
`
`undertaken many research projects involving development of high performance
`
`switches and routers for the Internet and LANs, which include multi-media and
`
`multi-services capabilities.
`
`
`
`At Washington University, I have taught many courses in electronics,
`
`communications, and computing, and supervised more than 50 graduate students,
`
`10 of whom received a doctoral degree under my direction. I have trained a
`
`number of students in these fields, many of whom are now leading professionals in
`
`their respective specialties.
`
`
`
`Outside the university, I have also founded two companies: MinMax
`
`Technologies, Inc. (May 1997), a fabless semiconductor company, which
`
`developed switch fabric semiconductor chips for the Internet, and Erlang
`
`Technology, Inc. (March 1999), which focused on the design and development of
`
`semiconductor chips and software for the Internet. Erlang’s switch fabric chips
`
`received a best product of the year award for 2004 from a major Internet industry
`
`trade journal.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`In 1996, I participated in a competitive wireless licensure process
`
`offered by the government of the Republic of Korea. Among numerous entries
`
`from Korea and overseas countries including many from the U.S.A., I was the
`
`primary technical author of the winning proposal by Hansol PCS for nation-wide
`
`deployment of Qualcomm's CDMA cellular technology. The Hansol PCS network,
`
`which I have designed, is one of the earliest commercial scale digital wireless
`
`networks in the world. I also understand that the Hansol PCS network may have
`
`been the first commercial scale CDMA wireless network in the world.
`
`
`
`I have also served as an advisor and consultant to a number of
`
`companies and organizations around the world, including Bell Atlantic Personal
`
`Communications, AT&T, SBC Communications, NTT Docomo, Korea Telecom,
`
`Southern New England Telecom, Electronics and Telecommunications Research
`
`Institute, and SK Telecom. For example, I have designed metropolitan scale
`
`wireless networks for Bell Atlantic Personal Communications (now Verizon
`
`Wireless) in 1995-1996, developed routing and switching technologies for
`
`Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute during 1993-2003, and
`
`consulted on traffic management and service deployment for Korea Telecom
`
`during mid to late 1990s. Most of my advisory and consultant roles included
`
`development, deployment, and assessment of wireless and/or wired technologies
`
`integrated together to provide state-of-art communication infrastructures.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`I have served on the program committee for the International
`
`Association of Science and Technology for Development International Conference
`
`on Communications, Internet and Information Technology, the Wireless and
`
`Optical Communications Conference, and the International Conference on
`
`Computer Communications and Networks.
`
`
`
`I am a member of, and actively involved in, professional
`
`organizations. For example, I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an Ambassador of the McDonnell International
`
`Scholars Academy, the Secretary for the Saint Louis Section of the IEEE, and a
`
`member of the Eta Kappa Nu Honor Society for electrical engineers.
`
`
`
`I am a named inventor on nine U.S. patents and have authored
`
`numerous technical papers, reports, and memoranda, and presented at numerous
`
`conferences, seminars, and workshops around the world. I have also organized
`
`several international conferences and served as an editor for international journals.
`
`I have received a number of professional awards, such as the Wall Street Journal
`
`Businessman of the Year (2003), the Outstanding Achievement Award from
`
`Bellcore (1990), and the Rockwell Fellowship (1985 and 1986).
`
` Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’747 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time.
`
` My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`(critical date). And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent (or in a published application for a U.S.
`
`patent) that was filed by another in the U.S. before the date of invention for such a
`
`claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others. While I do not
`
`know the exact date that the alleged invention claimed in the ’747 patent was
`
`made, I do know that the ’747 patent claims priority to applications filed as early
`
`as December 18, 2003 (Ex. 1001, cover page) and that during the prosecution of
`
`one of the priority applications, the applicant provided declarations testifying to an
`
`invention date as early as August 15, 2003. For purposes of my analysis here, I
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`have applied a date of August 15, 2003 as the date of the alleged invention in my
`
`obviousness analysis, although in many cases the same analysis would hold true
`
`even if the date of the alleged invention occurred earlier than August 15, 2003
`
`(especially given the earlier publication date of the prior art in Exhibits 1004, 1005,
`
`1007, and 1008 as described below). See, infra, ¶25.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight in
`
`making the obviousness determination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`C. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that regard, I understand
`
`that the best indicator of claim meaning is its usage in the context of the patent
`
`specification as understood by a POSITA. I further understand that the words of
`
`the claims should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent
`
`with the patent specification or the patent’s history of examination before the
`
`Patent Office. Also, I understand that it is important not to import into a claim any
`
`limitation from the specification that is not part of the claim language. Under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, an inventor can act as his own
`
`lexicographer for a claim term only where the inventor clearly and unambiguously
`
`sets forth an explicit definition of a claim term in the specification.
`
`
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made (not today). Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention
`
`was made, I have used the date of August 15, 2003 for reasons explained in ¶20
`
`(above) and ¶25 (below). However, the plain meanings/interpretations that I
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`employed in my analysis below would have also been correct if the date of
`
`invention was anywhere within the late-1990s to early-2000s.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’747 patent and file history, I believe that person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention (a “POSITA”) would have had at least an
`
`undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field,
`
`and two years of experience in the field of telecommunications devices and
`
`systems. My analysis and conclusions as expressed herein are thus based on the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art having this level of knowledge
`
`and skill at the time of the ’747 patent.
`
` Because Patent Owner has alleged a date of conception before August
`
`15, 2003, I have used this alleged invention date as the point in time from which
`
`my opinions from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art are based. Here
`
`again, my analysis of the prior art and the conclusion herein would also apply even
`
`if the date of the alleged invention as claimed was anywhere within the late-1990s
`
`to early-2000s (e.g., refer to the earlier publication or filing dates of Exhibits 1004,
`
`1005, 1006, and 1007).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
` My analyses set forth in this declaration are based on my experience
`
`in the field of network communication systems and associated technologies. Based
`
`on my above-described experience in the field of network communication systems,
`
`I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the field. Also, based on my
`
`experiences, I understand and know of the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill
`
`in this field during the late-1990s to early-2000s and specifically during the time
`
`before the alleged invention date (August 15, 2003) for the ’747 patent, and I
`
`taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons
`
`in the field during that time frame.
`
` As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the alleged invention date for the ’747 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the fields of electrical engineering and
`
`network communication systems generally; my experience in teaching and
`
`advising others in those subjects; and my experience in working with others
`
`involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications
`
`and materials:
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 8,199,747 to Rojas (“the ’747 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

` Prosecution History of the ’747 patent (Serial No. 12/398,076) (Ex.
`
`1002)
`
` International Publication No. WO01/11824 (“Zydney”) (Ex. 1004)
`
` Gralla, HOW THE INTERNET WORKS (6th Ed. 2001) (“Gralla”)
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,031,915 (“Okano”) (Ex. 1006)
`
` International Publication No. WO01/65786 (“Erekson”) (Ex. 1007)
`
` Excerpts of Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed
`
`on March 10, 2017 in Case No. 16-cv-00642 (E.D. Tex.), including
`
`Exhibit A. (Ex. 1013)
`
` THE NETWORK ENCYCLOPEDIA,
`
`(http://www.thenetworkencyclopedia.com/entry/packet-switching/)
`
`(Ex. 1014)
`
` N. Borenstein et al., REQUEST FOR COMMENTS (RFC) 1521:
`
`MIME (MULTIPURPOSE INTERNET MAIL EXTENSIONS)
`
`PART ONE: MECHANISMS FOR SPECIFYING AND
`
`DESCRIBING THE FORMAT OF INTERNET MESSAGE BODIES
`
`(1993) (Ex. 1015)
`
` Oxford (Online) Dictionaries, Definition of “Default” (cached 2000),
`
`(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/default) (Ex. 1016)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

` BUFFERING IN VOIP (2000),
`
`(http://www.comtest.com/tutorials/VoIP.html) (Ex. 1017)
`
` Although this Declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this Declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entireties.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’747 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview
` The ’747 patent describes various embodiments of “an instant voice
`
`messaging system . . . for delivering instant messages over a packet-switched
`
`network” such as the Internet. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’747 patent describes
`
`transmission of instant voice messages in a Voice Over IP or “VoIP” setting, while
`
`also allowing for connectivity with the public switched telephone network or
`
`“PTSN.” Id., 1:12-18; 2:53-67, 6:43-45. As explained by ’747 Patent, the PSTN is
`
`the communications medium for “traditional telephony.” Id., 1:20-30. “In the
`
`PSTN, a telephone terminal is electrically connected to a conventional or legacy
`
`switch.” Id. A physical communication path or “dedicated circuit” between
`
`telephone terminals is established by physically manipulating the switch—i.e.,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`“circuit switching.” Id. VoIP is a well-known alternative to the PSTN. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:31-39. In VoIP communications, “a VoIP terminal device is connected to a
`
`packet-switched network (e.g., Internet) and voice communication from the VoIP
`
`terminal device is digitized, packetized and transmitted over the packet-switched
`
`network to a destination VoIP terminal device.” Id. The ’747 patent describes
`
`traditional voice messaging used “in both the VoIP and PSTN” that were well-
`
`known prior to the ’747 patent, and further concedes that “[i]nstant text messaging
`
`is likewise known.” Ex. 1001, 1:64-2:10. The ’747 patent goes on to explain the
`
`widely known techniques for sending text messages by “select[ing] one or more
`
`persons to whom the message will be sent and typ[ing] in a text message. Id. 2:30-
`
`43. The text message is sent immediately via the text-messaging server to the
`
`selected one or more persons.” Id.
`
` A significant portion of the ’747 patent specification is directed
`
`toward acknowledging techniques and features that were already well-known with
`
`respect to sending and receiving instant text messages and simply applying them to
`
`voice messages. For example, the ’747 patent describes functions such as
`
`displaying a list of potential recipients for a message on a client device, allowing a
`
`user of the device “to select one or more recipients that are to receive the recorded
`
`instant voice message” and transmitting the instant voice message over a packet-
`
`switched network (e.g., the Internet, a WAN, or a LAN) to the one or more
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`selected recipients. Ex. 1001, 8:36-9:17; 6:46-7:18. Each of these features was
`
`well-known with respect to instant text messages prior to the earliest asserted
`
`priority date of the ’747 patent (as admitted by the ’747 patent itself) and are
`
`simply applied by the ’747 patent to instant voice messages rather than instant text
`
`messages. Furthermore, as explained in greater detail below, not only were these
`
`features well-known in the area of instant text messaging, they were also well-
`
`known in the area of instant voice messaging, including instant voice messaging
`
`using both PSTN and VoIP networks, well before the earliest asserted priority date
`
`of the ’747 patent, as exemplified by the Zydney reference and other prior art
`
`references cited herein.
`B.
`File History of the ’747 Patent
` As part of my preparation of this declaration, I reviewed the file
`
`history of the ’747 patent (Ex. 1002). I understand that the application that led to
`
`the ’747 patent was filed on March 4, 2009. The ’747 patent eventually issued on
`
`June 12, 2012. See Ex. 1001, Cover Page.
`
` Prosecution of the ’747 patent included a single rejection issued by
`
`the Patent Office with a subsequent response from the applicant and a notice of
`
`allowance. In the first office action claims 1 and 13 were rejected as anticipated by
`
`a reference not at issue here (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0298309 to DePietro et al.)
`
`while claims 2-12 and 14-16 ere indicated as including allowable subject matter.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Ex. 1002, 91-95. The applicant responded by amending certain dependent claims
`
`previously identified as allowable to be rewritten in independent form. Id., 111-
`
`117.
`
` The Examiner subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance on
`
`February 16, 212, stating as reasons for allowance:
`
`The prior art fails to disclose applicant’s method step of instant voice
`messaging whereby the message is generated based on the
`connectivity status of the recipient; neither does the prior art teach
`attaching one or more files to the instant voice message; nor does the
`prior art teach receiving a connectivity status of a list of nodes as
`either being available or unavailable. No obvious combination of
`references found would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art to
`make and use applicant's method as claimed.
`
`Ex. 1002, 127. Based on my review of the record, it appears that none of the prior
`
`art publications listed above (and which I analyze below) were cited in any office
`
`action by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
` As explained in detail below, based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience in this field and my review of the publications cited here, I do not agree
`
`that claims 1-15 are patentable over the prior art. The Zydney reference (Ex.
`
`1004), for example, does in fact provide a straightforward teaching of providing
`
`the connectivity status of a recipients when generating an instant voice message,
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`attaching one or more files to an instant voice message, the precise features which
`
`originally lead to allowance of the claims of the ’747 patent.
`
`VII. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’747 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`I have been asked to provide my interpretation of the following terms
`
`of the ’747 patent set forth below. In providing the following interpretation, I have
`
`carefully considered and applied the claim construction standard referred to in
`
`paragraphs 22-23, supra.
`
` Claims 2 recites the phrase “list of nodes” and the term “node.”
`
`Here, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claimed phrase that is
`
`consistent with the ’747 patent specification, the term “node” means a recipient.
`
`The ’747 patent does not include a lexicographic definition for this claim phrase,
`
`and indeed, the term “node” does not appear anywhere within the specification of
`
`the ’747 patent, but appears only in claim 2. Nevertheless, based on my
`
`knowledge and experience in this field, I believe a POSITA would have recognized
`
`my interpretation as being consistent with the plain meaning of the term “node” as
`
`understood in the context of the specification of the ’747 patent based on the way
`
`the term “node” is used in claim 2. See, e.g. claim 2 (“receiving a list of nodes
`
`within the packet-switched network, the list of nodes including a connectivity
`
`status of each node”). Furthermore, my interpretation is fully consistent with the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`position Patent Owner has taken in certain district court proceedings, asserting that
`
`the term “node” means “potential recipient.” Ex. 1013, 14.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES
` This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my independent analysis. To summarize those conclusions:
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 1-6, 8, and 12-
`
`13 of the ’747 patent are anticipated by International Publication No.
`
`WO01/11824 (“Zydney”).
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 2-6, 8, and 12-
`
`13 of the ’747 patent are rendered obvious by Zydney in view of
`
`Gralla, HOW THE INTERNET WORKS (6th Ed. 2002) (“Gralla”).
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 7, 9-11, and
`
`14-15 of the ’747 patent are rendered obvious by Zydney in view of
`
`Gralla and U.S. Patent No. 6,031,915 (“Okano”).
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, I believe that claims 7 and 10 of
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`the ’747 patent are rendered obvious by Zydney in view of Gralla and
`
`International Publication No. WO01/65786 (“Erekson”).
`
`IX. ANALYSIS OF ZYDNEY (CLAIMS 1-6, 8, 12-13)
` For the reasons articulated in detail below, and based on my review of
`
`the ’747 patent, file history, and the prior art references, it is clear that a POSITA
`
`would have readily understood that the teachings of Zydney plainly provide all
`
`elements of claims 1-6, 8, 12-13.
`
` Zydney describes a system for “voice exchange and voice distribution
`
`[that] allows a software agent with a user interface in conjunction with a central
`
`server to send, receive and store messages using voice containers.” Ex. 1004, 1:19-
`
`2:10. Zydney describes that “voice containers can be stored, transcoded and routed
`
`to the appropriate recipients instantaneously or stored for later delivery.” Id.
`
`Specifically, Zydney discloses the very features identified by the examiner of
`
`the ’747 patent in the reasons for allowance that was allegedly missing from the
`
`prior art: (1) providing “the ability to have other data types attached to [the voice
`
`containers] and thus be transported to the recipient;” and (2) conveying “[t]he
`
`status of all recipients” including “the core states of whether the recipient is online
`
`or offline” to the sending software agent client device. Ex. 1004, 19:1-20:9; 14:17-
`
`15:7.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

` Not only does Zydney disclose the feature believed to be missing
`
`from the prior art, Zydney further discloses each and every element of claims 1-6,
`
`8, and 12-13, including communication of instant voice messages over a packet
`
`switched network and “stor[ing] messages both locally and centrally at the server
`
`whenever the recipient is not available for a prescribed period of time” such that
`
`once the recipient device is available “all messages that have been stored on the
`
`message server will be sent to the appropriate software agent.” Id.at 2:3-10; 25:1-9.
`
` FIGs. 1 and 1A (reproduced below) of Zydney show the system
`
`architecture of Zydney that allows for recording and transmission of instant voice
`
`messages to and from devices connected to both a packet-switched network (e.g.,
`
`the Internet) and the PTSN. Zydney’s system utilizes a sender software agent (22,
`
`yellow) interfacing with a central server (24, pink) to send a voice container (26) to
`
`a recipient software agent (28, blue). Ex. 1004, 10:11-11:22. 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 (purple), intranets,
`
`and/or extranets, with traditional PSTN network (orange) support. Id., 5:3-14.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Ex. 1004, FIG. 1A (annotated).
`
`
`
` Zydney’s system allows a user of the “PC Software Agent” (22) to
`
`locally record a voice message that is “stored in a voice container” that is then
`
`transmitted over the Internet to the central server. Ex. 1004, 10:11-11:22. The
`
`central server (24) receives the voice container and either instantly delivers the
`
`voice message if the recipient device is available, or stores the voice message for
`
`later delivery once the recipient device becomes available. Ex. 1004, 1:19-2:10;
`
`10:11-11:22; 13:12-22; 25:1-13; FIG. 8.
`
` Zydney discloses several “distinct modes of communication” that can
`
`be employed by the system. Ex. 1004, 14:17-23. Two modes of communication
`
`described in detail by Zydney are a “pack and send mode of operation” and an
`23
`
`
`
`

`

`“‘intercom’ mode.” Id., 10:19-11:23, 15:8-16:15. Zydney describes the pack and
`
`send mode as a “voice mail conversation” or 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. Zydney describes the “real-time
`
`‘intercom’ mode” as “simulat[ing] a telephone call.” Id. 15:8-16:15. The sending
`
`software agent can make a determination as to which mode of communication to
`
`use “based on the status of the recipient.” Ex. 1004, 14:17-15:7. The status can
`
`include “core states of whether the recipient is online or offline” as well as
`
`“whether the recipient does not want to be disturbed.” Id. When a recipient device
`
`is online and available, the sender software agent can transmit the instant voice
`
`message using either mode of operation. Id., 15:8-14. If the intended recipient
`
`device is offline, only the pack and send mode is available. Id., 10:19-11:13,
`
`15:15-21. In either mode, transmission of the instant voice message may be
`
`conducted directly between software agents (22, 28) (so-called “peer-to-peer
`
`communications”) or through th