`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02088
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,995,433
`(PETITION 2 OF 2 - CLAIMS 9-12, 14-17, 25, 26)
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ......................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1
`
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 4
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 5
`
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 5
`
`II.
`
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................................. 5
`
`III. Requirements for Inter partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 and
`42.108 .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................. 6
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................. 6
`
`IV. Technology Background Relevant to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`The ’433 Patent ................................................................................................ 8
`
`VI. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“instant voice messaging application” ................................................ 10
`
`“client platform system” ...................................................................... 14
`
`VII. Claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 Are Unpatentable ........................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ..................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103) ............................................... 16
`
`Overview of Greenlaw (Ex. 1110) ............................................ 21
`
`i
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Overview of Newton (Ex. 1106) ............................................... 23
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 9, 12, 14, 17, 25-26 Are Obvious Over
`Zydney ................................................................................................. 24
`
`1.
`
`Claim 9 (Independent) .............................................................. 24
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`“A system, comprising:” (Preamble, Claim 9) ............... 24
`
`“an instant voice messaging application
`comprising:” (Claim 9[a]) .............................................. 24
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`“a client platform system for generating an
`instant voice message;” (Claim 9[a1])” ............... 26
`
`“a messaging system for transmitting the
`voice instant message over a packet-
`switched network; and” (Claim 9[a2]) ................. 29
`
`(c)
`
`“wherein the instant voice message application
`attaches one or more files to the instant voice
`message.” (Claim 9[b]) ................................................... 33
`
`Claim 12 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`encrypts the instant voice message.” ........................................ 37
`
`Claim 14 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`invokes a document handler to create a link between the
`instant voice message and the one or more files.” .................... 39
`
`Claim 17 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, further comprising an instant voice messaging server
`receiving the instant voice message and an indication of
`one or more intended recipients of the instant voice
`message.” .................................................................................. 44
`
`(a)
`
`“an instant voice messaging server receiving the
`instant voice message...” ................................................. 44
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`(b)
`
`“an instant voice messaging server receiving ... an
`indication of one or more intended recipients of the
`instant voice message.” ................................................... 46
`
`Claim 25 (Dependent): “The system of claim 17 wherein
`the instant voice messaging server determines availability
`of the one or more intended recipients for receipt of the
`instant voice message.” ............................................................. 47
`
`Claim 26 (Dependent): “The system of claim 25,
`wherein the instant voice messaging server: delivers the
`instant voice message to the one or more intended
`recipients who are determined to be currently available;
`stores the instant voice message for the one or more
`intended recipients who are not currently available; and
`delivers the instant voice message to the one or more
`intended recipients who are not currently available when
`the instant voice messaging server determines that the not
`currently available one or more intended recipients
`become available.” .................................................................... 48
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`“the instant voice messaging server: delivers the
`instant voice message to the one or more intended
`recipients who are determined to be currently
`available;” ....................................................................... 49
`
`“the instant voice messaging server... stores the
`instant voice message for the one or more intended
`recipients who are not currently available;” ................... 50
`
`“the instant voice messaging server... delivers the
`instant voice message to the one or more intended
`recipients who are not currently available when the
`instant voice messaging server determines that the
`not currently available one or more intended
`recipients become available.” ......................................... 50
`
`C. Ground 2: Claims 11, 15, 16 Are Obvious Over Zydney +
`Greenlaw ............................................................................................. 52
`
`1.
`
`Claim 11 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`displays one or more controls for audibly playing the
`instant voice message.” ............................................................. 52
`
`Claim 15 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays the attachment.” .......................................................... 58
`
`Claim 16 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays one or more controls for performing at least one
`of reviewing, re-recording or deleting the instant voice
`message.” .................................................................................. 59
`
`D. Ground 3: Claim 10 Is Obvious Over Zydney + Newton .................. 61
`
`1.
`
`Claim 10 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`9, wherein the packet-switched network comprises a
`WiFi network.” .......................................................................... 61
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 to Michael J. Rojas
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (“Zydney”) (with added line numbers)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004)
`Excerpts from Margaret Levine Young, Internet: The Complete
`Reference (2d ed. 2002)
`Excerpts from Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (2002)
`(“Newton”) (dated library copy)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October
`16, 2000, issued June 29, 2004)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 to David Morley Clark et al. (filed Oct.
`31, 2000, issued April 20, 2004)
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997)
`Excerpts from Raymond Greenlaw et al., Introduction to the
`Internet for Engineers (1999) (“Greenlaw”)
`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
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (as-published version without added line numbers)
`Library and date-stamped copy of excerpts from Raymond
`Greenlaw et al., Introduction to the Internet for Engineers (1999)
`
`Ex. No
`1101
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`1109
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`Petitioners LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) and Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Huawei”) file this petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and
`
`26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (Ex. 1101) (“’433 patent”).
`
`This petition is substantively the same as IPR2017-01428 (which is currently
`
`pending institution), and is being filed concurrently with a motion for joinder with
`
`respect to that proceeding.
`
`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)
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics
`
`MobileComm USA, Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc.,
`
`Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., and
`
`Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. are identified here as the real parties-in-
`
`interest to this inter partes review petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’433 patent is the subject of several pending requests for inter partes
`
`review (IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428) filed by Facebook, Inc. on May, 11,
`
`2017; (IPR2017-01611) filed by Snap Inc. on June 15, 2017; (IPR2017-01634)
`
`filed by Facebook, Inc. on June 16, 2017; and (IPR2017-1801) filed by Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. on July 20, 2017. In addition, (IPR2017-00225) filed by
`
`Apple Inc. on November 14, 2016 was instituted on May 25, 2017. The Petitioners
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`herein are not parties to the above listed petitions and were not involved in the
`
`preparation of those petitions.
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, the Petitioners are filing a second
`
`petition for inter partes review, to address claims not covered by the present
`
`Petition. More specifically, the present Petition addresses claims 9-12, 14-17, 25,
`
`and 26, and the other concurrently-filed petition addresses claims 1-8. The
`
`Petitioners filed their challenges against these claims in two separate petitions to
`
`allow each petition to provide a more complete and thorough treatment of each
`
`claim.
`
`The ’433 patent is also the subject of two pending litigations involving the
`
`Petitioners: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00991-JRG (E.D. Tex. Filed Sept. 6, 2016) and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00994-JRG (E.D. Tex. Filed
`
`Sept. 6, 2016), which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes with Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.) (lead case).
`
`The Petitioners are also aware of the following additional pending litigations
`
`involving the ’433 patent: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00728- JRG ; Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`
`00645-JRG; Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Tencent America
`
`LLC et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00694-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`Apple Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`Blackberry Corporation et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00722-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. BeeTalkPrivate Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Green Tomato Limited, Case No. 2:16-cv-00731-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC., Case
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00732- JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00777- JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Telegram
`
`Messenger, LLP, Case No. 2:16-cv-00892-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.
`
`v. Kyocera America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00990-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00214-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00224-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00231-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. KIK Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00347-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00349-JRG (E.D. Tex.); and
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Tencent America LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00577-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.). Although the Petitioners are not parties to these other litigations,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`because they involve allegations of infringement of the ’433 patent, they may be
`
`impacted by a decision by the Board in this IPR proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`Huawei
`David A. Garr (Reg. No. 74,932)
`Back-up Counsel for Huawei
`dgarr@cov.com
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`T: 202-662-6000
`F: 202-662-6291
`
`
`Gregory S. Discher (Reg. No. 42,488)
`Back-up Counsel for Huawei
`gdischer@cov.com
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`T: 202-662-6000
`F: 202-662-6291
`
`
`
`LG
`Anand K. Sharma (Reg. No. 43,916)
`Lead Counsel for LG
`anand.sharma@finnegan.com
`LG-Uniloc-IPR@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,
`L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Tel: (202) 408-4000
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Minjae Kang (Reg. No. 67,054)
`Back-up Counsel for LG
`minjae.kang@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,
`L.L.P.
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Tel: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369)
`Back-up Counsel for LG
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,
`L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Tel: (202) 408-4000
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`
`
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Bradford C. Schulz (Reg. No. 75,006)
`Back-up Counsel for LG
`bradford.schulz@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,
`L.L.P.
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Tel: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’433 patent, UNILOC USA, INC., Legacy Town Center, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite
`
`380, Plano Texas 75024. The Petitioners consent to electronic service at the
`
`addresses provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition requests review of ten (10) claims. A payment of $23,000 is
`
`submitted herewith, based on a $9,000 request fee (for up to 20 claims), and a post-
`
`institution fee of $14,000 (for up to 15 claims). This Petition meets the fee
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). If additional fees are due at any time during
`
`this proceeding, the Director is hereby authorized to charge such fees to Deposit
`
`Account Number 06-0916.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`The Petitioners certify that the ’433 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioners are not barred or otherwise estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`The Petitioners respectfully request that the Board initiate inter partes
`
`review of claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) under § 103(a)
`
`Claims
`9, 12, 14,
`17, 25, 26
`11, 15, 16 Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of
`Greenlaw (Ex. 1010), under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Newton
`(Ex. 1106), under § 103(a)
`
`10
`
`Part VII below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`on the grounds identified above. These references were not cited during the
`
`original prosecution of the ’433 patent, and were not cited in the separate instituted
`
`IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. (IPR2017-00225). Submitted with the Petition is
`
`the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1102) (“Lavian”), a technical expert
`
`with decades of relevant technical experience. (Lavian, ¶¶ 1-10, Ex. A.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO A PERSON OF ORDINARY
`SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As explained by Dr. Lavian, a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes
`
`of the ’433 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of
`
`experience in development and programming relating to network communication
`
`systems (or equivalent degree or experience). (Lavian, ¶¶ 13-15.)
`
`As discussed in more detail below, the ’433 patent relates generally to
`
`instant messaging systems. The term “instant messaging” or “IM” generally refers
`
`to a technology that allows two or more people to exchange information with other
`
`users, including text, voice data, and/or files. (Id., ¶ 30.)
`
`Instant messaging technologies date back to at least the 1960s with the MIT
`
`“Interconsole Messages” system, which allowed users to exchange textual
`
`messages over a network. (Id., ¶ 32.) Through the 1980s and 1990s, companies
`
`such as CompuServe, Commodore, and America Online (AOL), among others,
`
`released instant messaging solutions to the public, some of which became
`
`immensely popular. (Id., ¶¶ 33-36.) For example, by 2002, AOL Instant
`
`Messenger (AIM), the instant messaging service offered by AOL, had more than
`
`100 million registered users. (Id., ¶ 37.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`The ’433 patent also acknowledges that instant messaging solutions were
`
`known in the art. The Background section of the patent explains that known
`
`instant messaging (“IM”) systems generally included client devices, IM software
`
`installed on those client devices, and IM servers. (’433, 2:35-39.) IM systems
`
`communicated over a packet-switched network, such as the Internet. (Id., 1:38-39,
`
`2:35-39.) The IM server maintained a list of users that were currently “online” and
`
`able to receive messages and presented this list to the users via the instant
`
`messaging software. (Id., 2:39-42; Lavian, ¶ 40.) A user could select one or more
`
`recipients and send them a message. (’433, 2:43-45; Lavian, ¶¶ 30, 41, 42.) The
`
`IM server would transmit the message to the recipients and the message would be
`
`displayed to the recipients by the IM software. (’433, 2:45-47.)
`
`Instant messaging services typically required that the user have software (an
`
`IM client) that provides a user interface allowing a user to send messages to one or
`
`more recipients. The messages would typically be communicated to a server
`
`which would either deliver the message to the recipients or store them at the server
`
`if the recipient was not currently available. (Lavian, ¶¶ 30, 41, 42.) IM clients
`
`typically varied in terms of what types of information they could transmit, how
`
`they indicate availability of other users, whether and how they secure the
`
`communications, and other details. (Id., ¶ 31.)
`
`V. THE ’433 PATENT
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`
`The ’433 patent purports to describe a system and method for delivering
`
`instant voice messages over a packet-switched network. (’433, Abstract.) The
`
`disclosed system includes a client such as a VoIP telephone or PC computer
`
`“enabled for IP telephony” that is connected to a server and instant voice message
`
`(“IVM”) recipients through a network(s). (Id., 1:44-51, 2:61-3:5, 7:8-26.)
`
`In one embodiment, when a user chooses to send an IVM, the IVM client
`
`displays a “list of one or more IVM recipients.” (Id., 8:2-5.) This recipient list is
`
`provided and stored by an IVM server. (Id.) Once recipients are selected, the user
`
`records a message, such as by using a microphone to record a digitized audio file.
`
`(Id., 8:11-15.) The patent states that one or more files may be attached to the
`
`instant voice message, such as by using a conventional “drag-and-drop” technique.
`
`(Id., 12:28-43, 13:35-40.)
`
`Once the voice message is generated, the client transmits the voice message
`
`to the server for delivery to one or more recipients. (Id., 8:22-30.) After receiving
`
`the IVM, the server transmits the voice message to the one or more recipients. (Id.,
`
`8:30-33.) If the recipient is “available” (currently connected to the IVM server), it
`
`will receive the instant voice message. (Id., 8:36-38.) If a recipient is unavailable
`
`(offline), the server temporarily saves the voice message and transmits it once the
`
`recipient becomes available. (Id., 8:38-43.) The recipient is notified of the new
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`voice message and can play the audio file. (Id., 8:33-36.) If the message had
`
`attachments, the recipient can also access the attached files. (Id., 13:5-12.)
`
`This Petition addresses claims 9-12, 14-17, 25, and 26. Claim 9 is the sole
`
`challenged independent claim. Claims 11, 12, and 14-17 depend from claim 9.
`
`Claim 25 depends from claim 17, and claim 26 depends from claim 25.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`The constructions below provide the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“instant voice messaging application”
`
`A.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of an “instant voice messaging
`
`application” in the context of the claims of the ’433 patent is “hardware and/or
`
`software used for instant voice messaging ” (Lavian, ¶¶ 48-56.)1
`
`The written description of the ’433 patent does not use the word
`
`“application” in any way relevant to the alleged invention. In fact, all instances of
`
`
`1 The Petitioners do not contend that “instant voice messaging application,” under
`
`its broadest reasonable construction, is a “means-plus-function” claim limitation
`
`subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). The Petitioners reserve their right to
`
`argue that this term is indefinite under the narrower claim construction standards
`
`applicable in litigation.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`the word “application” in the written description involve irrelevant (for purposes of
`
`this Petition) cross-references to related patent applications. (’433, 1:4-14.)
`
`Nevertheless, the term “application” to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`typically refers to computer software for performing a particular function. (Lavian,
`
`¶ 52 (citing Ex. 1109, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997), at 27
`
`(defining “application” as “[a] program designed to assist in the performance of a
`
`specific task, such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management.”)).)
`
`The written description of the ’433 patent, however, indicates that the term “instant
`
`voice messaging application” should not be limited to just software under its
`
`broadest reasonable construction.
`
`The written description does not identify any particular software program
`
`capable of performing all of the functions associated with the “instant voice
`
`messaging application” recited in the claims. (Lavian, ¶ 53.) To the contrary, it
`
`describes these functions as being performed by an instant voice messaging client,
`
`IVM client 208, which is a “general-purpose programmable computer.” (’433,
`
`12:13-15.) The IVM client 208 contains various boxes labeled with functions
`
`including client platform 302, which contains boxes labeled client engine 304,
`
`document handler 306, file manager 308, audio file creation 312, signal processing
`
`314, encryption/decryption 316, and compression/decompression 316. (Id., 12:19-
`
`23.) The IVM client 208 also contains a box labeled messaging system 320. (Id.,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`12:8-13.) Figure 3, an excerpt of which is reproduced below, shows these various
`
`boxes inside IVM client 208.
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`The Petitioners note that independent claims 1, 6, and 9 recite that the
`
`“instant voice message application” includes a “client platform system” and a
`
`“messaging system.” But Figure 3 above shows both client platform 302 and
`
`messaging system 320 sitting within IVM client 208, and the written description
`
`does not identify a specific software program that contains those two components.
`
`Accordingly, the term “instant voice messaging application” under its broadest
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`reasonable construction should not be limited to a software program, but should be
`
`interpreted more broadly to encompass a combination of multiple different
`
`software programs and/or hardware components. (Lavian, ¶ 54.)
`
`This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that independent claims 1 and 6
`
`recite that the claimed instant voice messaging application “displays a list of one or
`
`more potential recipients for the instant voice message.” The written description
`
`indicates that displaying is carried out by a hardware device - display device 216
`
`connected to IVM client 208. (Id., Fig. 2; 8:2-3 (“The IVM client 208 displays a
`
`list of one or more IVM recipients on its display 216... .”).)2 The written
`
`description does not state that any of the boxes inside IVM client 208, or any
`
`software, provides the claimed display capability.
`
`Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that,
`
`under its broadest reasonable construction, “instant voice messaging application” is
`
`not limited to software and could include hardware such as a general purpose
`
`computer and display device 216. (Lavian, ¶ 56.) Accordingly, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “instant voice messaging application” in the context of the
`
`
`2 All emphasis in quoted text in this Petition has been added, unless otherwise
`
`noted.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`claims of the ’433 patent is “hardware and/or software used for instant voice
`
`messaging.”
`
`“client platform system”
`
`B.
`One of the components of the claimed “instant voice messaging application”
`
`is a “client platform system.” In particular, claims 1 and 9 state that the “instant
`
`voice messaging application” includes “a client platform system for generating an
`
`instant voice message.” As shown below, the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“client platform system” is “hardware and/or software on a client for
`
`generating an instant voice message.”3
`
`The written description does not use the term “client platform system” but
`
`does describe a “client platform 302” whose purpose is “generating an instant
`
`voice message” (’433, 12:9-10). The written description further states that the
`
`client platform 302 “comprises a client engine 304, which controls other
`
`components” such as the document handler, file manager, and
`
`
`3 The Petitioners do not contend that “client platform system,” under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction, is a “means-plus-function” claim limitation subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). The Petitioners reserve their right to argue that this
`
`term is indefinite under the narrower claim construction standards applicable in
`
`litigation.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`encryption/decryption. (Id., 12:19-23.) The written description does not identify
`
`what “client engine 304” actually is, e.g., whether it is hardware and/or software.
`
`The written description instead provides a functional description of client engine
`
`304 as performing at least two functions: (1) communicating with the server and
`
`(2) performing operations required to generate an instant voice message. (Id.,
`
`12:26-27, 13:17-30.) Figure 3 similarly shows client engine 304 as a nondescript
`
`box within client platform 302. (Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`Nevertheless, as explained above, the claimed “instant voice messaging
`
`application” is composed of hardware and/or software under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction. Because the claimed “client platform system” is part of
`
`the “instant messaging application” in the challenged claims, the “client platform
`
`system” under its broadest reasonable construction should similarly be defined as
`
`hardware and/or software. Accordingly, the term “client platform system” should
`
`be defined under its broadest reasonable construction as “hardware and/or
`
`software on a client for generating an instant voice message.”
`
`In the co-pending litigation involving Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(lead case), the Patent Owner has proposed to construe “a client platform system”
`
`to mean “the system of the client engine which controls other components used to
`
`generate an instant voice message.” (Ex. 1111, Ex. A, pp.16-17 (Term 24).) This
`
`definition has various flaws and is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`interpretation. (Lavian, ¶ 61.) To begin with, this definition incorrectly reverses
`
`the relationship between the “client engine” and the “client platform” by reciting
`
`that the “client platform system” is a part of the “client engine.” But the written
`
`description makes clear that the opposite is true - client engine 304 is part of the
`
`client platform 302, not the other way around. (’433, Fig. 3, 12:19-20 (“The client
`
`platform 302 comprises a client engine 304, which controls other
`
`components…”).) Second, the claims themselves do not recite a “client engine,”
`
`and the recitation of a “client engine” does not appear to add anything meaningful
`
`to the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. (Lavian, ¶ 61.) Nevertheless, as
`
`explained in the analysis below, the prior art discloses the claimed “client platform
`
`system” even under the Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`VII. CLAIMS 9-12, 14-17, 25, AND 26 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`The challenged claims are unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103), under § 103(a)
`
`Claims
`9, 12, 14,
`17, 25, 26
`11, 15, 16 Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex 1103) in view of
`Greenlaw (Ex. 1110), under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Newton
`(Ex. 1106), under §