`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`Case IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`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) ................. 5
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................ 5
`E.
`Power of Attorney .......................................................................... 5
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................. 6
`II.
`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. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 7
`V. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................. 8
`A.
`“instant voice messaging application”.............................................. 8
`B.
`“client platform system” ............................................................... 10
`C.
`“communication platform system”................................................. 11
`VI. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ............................................... 12
`A. Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art .................. 12
`1.
`
`Overview of Zydney ........................................................... 12
`
`Overview of Shinder (Ex. 1014) .......................................... 15
`2.
`3.
`
`Overview of Clark (Ex. 1008).............................................. 16
`
`Overview of Appelman (Ex. 1004) ...................................... 17
`4.
`B. Ground 1: Claims 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 18-21, 23, 27, 32-35, and
`38 Are Obvious Over Zydney + Shinder ........................................ 19
`1.
`
`Claim 3 (Independent) ......................................................... 19
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Preamble, Claim 3).............. 19
`(b)
`“a network interface connected to a packet-
`switched network;” (Claim 3[a]) ................................ 20
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`“a network interface” ....................................... 20
`“…connected to a packet-switched
`network;” ........................................................ 24
`“a messaging system communicating with a
`plurality of instant voice message client systems
`via the network interface; and” (Claim 3[b]) ............... 25
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 3[c]) .............................................................. 29
`“wherein the messaging system receives an instant
`voice message from one of the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems, and” (Claim 3[d]) ......... 31
`“wherein the instant voice message includes an
`object field including a digitized audio file.”
`(Claim 3[e]) .............................................................. 32
`(i)
`“object field” ................................................... 32
`(ii)
`“digitized audio file” ........................................ 34
`Claim 6 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 3,
`wherein the instant voice message includes an identifier
`field including a unique identifier associated with the
`instant voice message.” ....................................................... 34
`Claim 7 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 3,
`wherein the instant voice message includes a source field
`including a unique identifier associated with at least one
`of a given one of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems that created the instant voice message and
`a given one of the plurality of users using the given one
`of the plurality of instant voice message client systems.” ...... 36
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`(i)
`(ii)
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`4.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 8 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 3,
`wherein the instant voice message includes a destination
`field including a unique identifier associated with at least
`one of a given one of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems identified as a recipient of the
`instant voice message and a given one of the plurality of
`users using the given one of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems.” ..................................................... 39
`Claim 10 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`3, further comprising: a message database storing the
`instant voice messages received from the instant voice
`message client systems.” ..................................................... 40
`Claim 11 (Dependent) ......................................................... 41
`(a)
`“The system according to claim 3, wherein, upon
`receipt of an instant voice message, the
`communication platform system determines if
`there is the current connection to one of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems
`identified as a recipient of the instant voice
`message,” .................................................................. 41
`“and if there is no connection with the one of the
`plurality of instant voice message client system
`identified as the recipient, the instant voice
`message is stored and delivered when the one of
`the plurality of instant voice message client
`systems identified as the recipient re-established a
`connection.” .............................................................. 43
`Claim 13 (Dependent) ......................................................... 44
`(a)
`“The system according to claim 3, wherein each of
`the instant voice message client systems comprises
`an instant voice messaging application…” .................. 44
`“… [an instant voice messaging application]
`generating an instant voice message and
`transmitting the instant voice message over the
`packet-switched network to the messaging
`system.” .................................................................... 45
`
`(b)
`
`(b)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`Claim 18 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`13, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes an audio file creation system creating an audio
`file for the instant voice message based on input received
`via an audio input device coupled to the client device.” ........ 46
`Claim 19 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`13, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes an encryption/decryption system for encrypting
`the instant voice messages to be transmitted over the
`packet-switched network and decrypting the instant
`voices [sic] messages received over the packet-switched
`network.” ............................................................................ 47
` Claim 20 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`13, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a compression/decompression system for
`compressing the instant voice messages to be transmitted
`over the packet-switched network and decompressing the
`instant voice messages received over the packet-switched
`network.” ............................................................................ 49
` Claim 21 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`13, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays a list of one or more potential recipients for the
`instant voice message.” ....................................................... 50
` Claim 23 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`13, wherein the instant voice message application
`generates an audible or visual effect indicating receipt of
`an instant voice message.” ................................................... 50
` Claim 27 (Independent) ....................................................... 51
`(a)
`“A system comprising: a client device;” (Claim
`27[a]) ........................................................................ 51
`“a network interface coupled to the client device
`and connecting the client device to a packet-
`switched network; and” (Claim 27[b]) ........................ 52
`
`(b)
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`(c)
`
`“an instant voice messaging application installed
`on the client device, wherein the instant voice
`messaging application includes a client platform
`system for generating an instant voice message
`and,” (Claim 27[c1]) .................................................. 53
`“a messaging system for transmitting the instant
`voice message over the packet-switched network
`via the network interface,” (Claim 27[c2]) .................. 54
`“wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a document handler system for attaching
`one or more files to the instant voice message.”
`(Claim 27[d]) ............................................................ 55
` Claims 32-35 (Dependent) ................................................... 57
` Claim 38 (Independent) ....................................................... 58
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Claim 38 Preamble)............. 58
`“a client device;” (Claim 38[a]) ........................................... 58
`“a network interface coupled to the client device and
`connecting the client device to a packet-switched
`network; and” (Claim 38[b]) ...................................... 58
`“an instant voice messaging application installed on the
`client device, wherein the instant voice messaging
`application includes” (Claim 38[c]) ............................ 58
`“a client platform system for generating an instant voice
`message and” (Claim 38[c1]) ..................................... 58
`“a messaging system for transmitting the instant voice
`message over the packet-switched network via the
`network interface,” (Claim 38[c2]) ............................. 58
`“a display displaying a list of one or more potential
`recipients for an instant voice message.” (Claim
`38[d])........................................................................ 58
`C. Ground 2: Claims 14-17 and 28-31 Are Obvious Over Zydney
`+ Shinder, In Further View of Clark .............................................. 59
`
`14.
`15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(b)
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Claim 14 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`13, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a message database storing the instant voice
`message, wherein the instant voice message is
`represented by a database record including a unique
`identifier.” .......................................................................... 59
`Claim 15 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`14, wherein the message database includes a plurality of
`instant voice messages recorded by a user of the client
`device and instant voice messages received over the
`packet-switched network.”................................................... 65
`Claim 16 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`15, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`displays at least one of the plurality of instant voice
`messages stored in the message database.” ........................... 66
`Claim 17 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`14, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a file manager system performing at least one of
`storing, deleting and retrieving the instant voice
`messages from the message database.” ................................. 67
`5.
`Claims 28-31 (Dependent) ................................................... 69
`
`D. Ground 3: Claims 22 and 39 Are Obvious Over Zydney +
`Shinder, In Further View of Appelman .......................................... 70
`VII. This Petition is substantively identical to ’1667 and ’1804 ....................... 77
`VIII. The Board should institute in view of Blue Coat Systems ......................... 77
`
`3.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 to Michael J. Rojas (filed July 11, 2012,
`issued May 13, 2014)
`
`1002 Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`1003
`
`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 line numbers added)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004) (“Appelman”)
`
`1005
`
`Excerpts from MARGARET LEVINE YOUNG, INTERNET: THE
`COMPLETE REFERENCE (McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2d ed. 2002)
`
`1006 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,
`September 1993 (“RFC 1521”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October 16,
`2000, issued June 29, 2004)
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 to David Morley Clark et al. (filed Oct.
`31, 2000, issued April 20, 2004) (“Clark”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Excerpts from PAUL S. HETHMON, ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO HTTP
`(Manning Publications Co., 1997) (“Hethmon”)
`
`Excerpts from CRAIG HUNT, TCP/IP NETWORK ADMINISTRATION
`(O’Reilly, 2d Ed. 1998) (“Hunt”)
`
`1011 HTTP Working Group, Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1,
`Nov. 22, 1995 (draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt)
`
`1012
`
`Excerpts from MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (Microsoft Press,
`3d ed. 1997)
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. No
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`Description of Document
`
`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)
`
`Excerpts from DEBRA LITTLEJOHN SHINDER, COMPUTER
`NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2002) (“Shinder”)
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of PAUL S. HETHMON,
`ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO HTTP (Manning Publications Co., 1997)
`
`Library date stamped copy of CRAIG HUNT, TCP/IP NETWORK
`ADMINISTRATION (O’Reilly, 2d Ed. 1998)
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of DEBRA LITTLEJOHN
`SHINDER, COMPUTER NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991)
`(“Microsoft (1991)”)
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 6,173,323 to Pratyush Moghe (filed Dec. 24, 1997,
`issued Jan. 9, 2001) (“Moghe”)
`
`1020 Compare copy of the current Petition showing differences between
`the current Petition and the petition filed in IPR2017-01667
`
`1021 Compare copy of the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Exhibit
`1002), showing the differences between Exhibit 1002 and the
`Declaration as filed in IPR2017-01667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`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)
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest to this inter partes
`
`review petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Eleven inter partes review petitions have been filed against the ’622 patent:
`
`Petitioner
`IPR Number
`IPR2017-00223 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-00224 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01804 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01805 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01667 Facebook, Inc. and
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01668 Facebook, Inc. and
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01797 Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01798 Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`Status
`
`Denied
`
`Denied
`
`Joinder Petition denied without
`prejudice – Board requested Apple to
`file joinder Petition IPR2018-00579
`
`Joinder Petition denied without
`prejudice – Board requested Apple to
`file joinder Petition IPR2018-00580
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`Joinder Petition, Pending
`
`Original Petition, Pending
`
`Original Petition, Pending
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02090 Hauwei Device Co.,
`Ltd and LG
`Electronics, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-02080 Google, Inc.;
`Motorola Mobility
`LLC; Hauwei
`Investment & Holding
`Co., Ltd.; Hauwei
`Device Co., Ltd.;
`Hauwei Device USA,
`Inc.; and Huawei
`Device (Dongguan)
`Co., Ltd.
`
`IPR2017-02081 Google, Inc.;
`Motorola Mobility
`LLC; Hauwei
`Investment & Holding
`Co., Ltd.; Hauwei
`Device Co., Ltd.;
`Hauwei Device USA,
`Inc.; and Huawei
`Device (Dongguan)
`Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`On July 20, 2017, Apple filed the ’1804 and ’1805 petitions. As noted
`
`above, the Board denied institution “without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file
`
`a new petition accompanied by a request for joinder pursuant to and within the
`
`time period permitted by 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).” Accordingly, Petitioner files the
`
`instant petition and an accompanied request for joinder pursuant to §42.122(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, the Petitioner is filing a second
`
`petition for inter partes review to address claims not covered by the present
`
`Petition. More specifically, the present Petition addresses claims 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13,
`
`14-23, 27-35, 38, and 39, whereas the other petition addresses claims 4, 5, 12, and
`
`24-26. The Petitioner filed its challenges against these claims in two separate
`
`petitions to provide a more complete and thorough treatment of each claim.
`
`The ’622 patent is also the subject of one pending litigation involving the
`
`Petitioner: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex. filed June 14, 2016 and served July 21, 2016), which has been
`
`consolidated for pretrial purposes with Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.). These
`
`petitions are timely under the one year statute of limitations in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Currently, this litigation is stayed pending the outcome of other IPR petitions filed
`
`by Petitioner.
`
`The Petitioner is also aware of the following additional pending litigations
`
`involving the ’622 patent: 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. Snap Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00696-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
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`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. HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00989-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00991-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et
`
`al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00993-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei
`
`Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00994-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.); and 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.).
`
`Although the Petitioners are not parties to those other litigations, because they
`
`involve allegations of infringement of the ’622 patent, they may be impacted by a
`
`decision by the Board in this IPR proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`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
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg (Reg. No. 43,447)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8645
`Fax: 202.371.2540
`Email: jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`Michael D. Specht (Reg. No. 54,463)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8756
`Fax: 202.371.2540
`Email: mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Trent W. Merrell (Reg. No. 73,771)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8519
`Fax: 202.371.2540
`Email: tmerrell-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’622 patent, Legacy Town Center, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380, Plano, Texas
`
`75024. The Petitioner consents to electronic service at the addresses provided
`
`above for lead and back-up counsel with a courtesy copy to ptab@skgf.com.
`
`Power of Attorney
`E.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`This Petition requests review of 28 claims. A payment of $40,700 is
`
`submitted herewith, based on a $17,900 request fee and $22,800 post-institution
`
`fee. 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 19-0036 (Customer ID
`
`No. 45324).
`
`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 Petitioner certifies that the ’622 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or 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 Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board initiate inter partes
`
`review on the following grounds (bold underlining showing independent claims):
`
`Claims
`3, 6-8, 10,
`11, 13, 18-
`21, 23, 27,
`32-35, 38
`14-17,
`28-31
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1003) and Shinder (Ex.
`1014) under § 103(a)
`
`Unpatentable over Zydney and Shinder and Clark (Ex.
`1008), under § 103(a)
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground
`3
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`Claims
`22, 39
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney and Shinder and Appelman
`(Ex. 1004), under § 103(a)
`
`Part VI below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`on these grounds. These references were not cited during the original ’622 patent
`
`prosecution, and were not cited in the separate IPR petitions filed by Apple Inc.
`
`(IPR2017-00223 and IPR2017-00224) that were denied by the Board on May 25,
`
`2017. Submitted with the Petition is the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Exhibit
`
`1002) (“Lavian”), an expert with decades of relevant technical experience.
`
`(Lavian, Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-10, Ex. A.)
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As Dr. Lavian explains, a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of
`
`the ’622 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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`“instant voice messaging application”
`A.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of an “instant voice messaging
`
`application” in the context of the claims of the ’622 patent is “hardware and/or
`
`software used for instant voice messaging.” (Lavian, ¶¶49-57.)1
`
`The written description does not use the word “application” in any way
`
`relevant to the alleged invention. The word “application” appears in the written
`
`description solely in reference to related patent applications. (’622, Ex. 1001, 1:4-
`
`14.) The term “application” to a person of ordinary skill in the art typically refers
`
`to computer software for performing a particular function. (Lavian, ¶53.) But the
`
`written description of the ’622 patent indicates that the term “instant voice
`
`messaging application” should not be limited to software.
`
`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. (Id., ¶54.) To the contrary, the
`
`1 The Petitioner does not contend that any term herein, under its broadest
`
`reasonable construction, is a “means-plus-function” element subject to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶6 (pre-AIA). The Petitioner reserves the right to argue that terms are
`
`indefinite under narrower litigation claim construction standards.
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`patent describes these functions as being performed by an instant voice messaging
`
`(“IVM”) client, IVM client 208, which is a “general-purpose programmable
`
`computer.” (’622, 12:11-14.) Figure 3, an excerpt of which is reproduced below,
`
`shows these various boxes inside IVM client 208 (shown in annotated red box).
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 3 (annotation added).) IVM client 208 in Figure 3 above contains client
`
`platform 302 and messaging system 320. (Id., 12:17-21; 12:6-11.)
`
`Claims 27 and 38 recite an “instant voice messaging application” that
`
`includes a “client platform system” and a “messaging system,” which correspond
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`to the two components of the IVM client 208 from Figure 3 above. This
`
`correspondence indicates that the ’622 patent equates the claimed “instant voice
`
`messaging application” with the IVM client 208 which, as noted above, is a
`
`general-purpose computer.
`
` (’622, 12:11-14.) Accordingly, “instant voice
`
`messaging application” should not under its broadest reasonable construction be
`
`limited to software. (Lavian, ¶¶55, 56.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“instant voice messaging application” is “hardware and/or software used for
`
`instant voice messaging.” (Id. ¶57.)
`
`“client platform system”
`B.
`As noted in the preceding section, one component of the claimed “instant
`
`voice messaging application” is a “client platform system.” In particular, claims
`
`27 and 38 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.” (Lavian,
`
`¶¶58-62.)
`
`The written description does not use the term “client platform system” but
`
`describes “client platform 302” whose purpose is “generating an instant voice
`
`message.” (’622, 12:7-8.) The written description further states that the client
`
`platform 302 “comprises a client engine 304, which controls other components”
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`such as the document handler, file manager, and encryption/decryption. (Id.,
`
`12:17-21.) 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., 12:24-25, 13:15-28.) Figure 3
`
`similarly shows client engine 304 as a nondescript box within client platform 302.
`
`(Id., Fig. 3.)
`
`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,”
`
`the “client platform system” under
`
`its broadest reasonable
`
`construction should similarly not be limited to software. Accordingly, “client
`
`platform system” under its broadest reasonable construction is “hardware and/or
`
`software on a client for generating an instant voice message.” (Lavian, ¶¶61-
`
`62.)
`
`“communication platform system”
`
`C.
`Claim 3 recites “a communication platform system maintaining connection
`
`information for each of the plurality of instant voice message client systems
`
`indicating whether there is a current connection to each of the plurality of instant
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`voice message client systems.”2 The specification describes the “communication
`
`platform” as being a part of the IVM server 202. (Lavian, ¶¶64-65 (citing ’622,
`
`13:46-55, Fig. 4 (item 402).) Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`this term is a “system of the server which relays communications and/or tracks
`
`client connection information,” which is consistent with the function of the
`
`communication platform system recited in the claim. (Lavian, ¶¶63-65.)
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`The challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds identified in
`
`Part III.B above. This Petition will first provide an overview of each reference
`
`and then describe the proposed grounds in detail.
`
`A. Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
` Overview of Zydney 1.
`
`Zydney3 is a published PCT application that describes a system for voice
`
`communication that enables a user to send instant voice messages, which Zydney
`
`calls “voice containers.” (Zydney, Ex. 1003, 2:2-3.) The system transmits the
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, all underlining or boldface type in quotations
`
`appearing in this Petition has been added for emphasis.
`
`3 Line numbers in have been added to the left of each page in Zydney for
`
`convenience and ease of reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`voice containers “instantaneously or stored for later delivery,” depending on
`
`whether or not the recipient is currently online. (Id., 1:19-22, 15:8-21.) Zydney
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`
`
`The system of Zydney is generally shown in Figure 1A, reproduced below.
`
`(Zydney, Fig. 1A (highlighting added).)
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Three key components of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,724,622
`include
`the “SENDER PC
`
`the system
`
`SOFTWARE AGENT” shown on the left (22), the “RECIPIENT PC SOFTWARE
`
`AGENT” shown on the right (28), and the “CENT