`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R ........................................... 1 
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. Related Matters .................................................................................. 1 
`C. Counsel and Service Information ..................................................... 8 
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................. 9 
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 9 
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................. 9 
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................... 11 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 11 
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’890 PATENT AND PRIOR ART, AND
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY .................... 12 
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Renders Obvious Claim 9 .......... 12 
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 12 
`2.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................... 34 
`3.
`Claim 9 .................................................................................... 34 
`B. Ground 2 – Griffin, Zydney, and Malik Render Obvious
`Claims 23 and 57............................................................................... 38 
`1.
`Claim 2 .................................................................................... 38 
`2.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................. 43 
`3.
`Claim 23 .................................................................................. 56 
`4.
`Claim 51 .................................................................................. 57 
`5.
`Claim 57 .................................................................................. 59 
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 59 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ................................................... 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 6, 7
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................. 79
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................ 79
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/740,030, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`U.S. Patent No. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”)
`International Published Application No. WO 01/11824A2 (“Zydney”)
`RESERVED
`International Published Application No. WO 02/17650A1
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,978
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 (“Malik”)
`RESERVED
`
`-
`
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16th. ed. 2000)
`John Rittinghouse, IM Instant Messaging Security (1st ed. 2005)
`Dreamtech Software Team, Instant Messaging Systems: Cracking the
`Code (2002)
`Upkar Varshney et al., Voice over IP, Communication of the ACM
`(2002, Vol. 45, No. 1)
`Iain Shigeoka, Instant Messaging in Java: Jabber Protocols (2002)
`
`
`1 Citations to non-patent publications are to the original page numbers of the
`
`publication, and citations to U.S. patents are to column:line number of the patents.
`
`
`
`iii.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`No.
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`Description
`Trushar Barot & Eytan Oren, Guide to Chat Apps, TOW Center for
`Digital Journalism, Columbia University (2005)
`Samir Chatterjee et al., Instant Messaging and Presence Technologies
`for College Campuses, IEEE Network (Nov. 9, 2005)
`Daniel Minoli & Emma Minoli, Delivering Voice Over IP Networks
`(2nd ed. 2002)
`Thomas Porter & Michael Gough, How to Cheat at VoIP Security (1st
`ed. 2007)
`Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th. ed. 2002)
`Justin Berg, The
`IEEE 802.11 Standardization
`Its History,
`Specification, Implementations and Future, George Mason University,
`Technical Report Series (2011)
`Wolter Lemstra & Vic Hayes, Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of Wi-
`Fi, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries (2008, Vol. 9,
`No. 2)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0039340
`International Published Application No. WO 01/24036
`U.S. Patent No. 9,179,495
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0025080
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Joinder Petitioners
`
`Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp, Inc. (“Joinder Petitioners”) respectfully request inter
`
`partes review of claims 9, 23, and 57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890. Joinder
`
`Petitioners are filing concurrently herewith a Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), requesting that the Board
`
`institute inter partes review and join the present proceeding, with respect to claims
`
`9, 23, and 57 only, with pending proceeding IPR2017-01802.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Joinder Petitioners request inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 9, 23, and
`
`57 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (“the ’890 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`According to PTO records, the ’890 Patent is assigned to Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.
`
`(“PO”). For the reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Joinder Petitioners Facebook and WhatsApp are the real parties-in-interest.
`B. Related Matters
`The ’890 Patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tencent Am., LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00577-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`
`
`1.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BlackBerry Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kakao Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00640-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Line Euro-Americas Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00641-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Viber Media S.A.R.L., Case No. 2:16-cv-00643-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. VoxerNet LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00644-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00645-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tencent Am., LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00694-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Snapchat, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00696-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00722-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BeeTalk Private Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00725-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00728-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Green Tomato Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00731-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Interactive Entm’t LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00732-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. TangoMe, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00733-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00777-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ShoreTel, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00779-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00892-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00893-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00989-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kyocera Am., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00990-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-00992-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00993-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`00994-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HeyWire, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01313-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00214-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00231-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kik Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00347-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00349-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00465-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00466-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00467-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00475-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kik Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00481-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`The ’890 Patent has been challenged in the following IPRs:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00220 (institution
`denied May 25, 2017).
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00221 (trial instituted
`May 25, 2017).
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01523 (institution denied
`Dec. 4, 2017).
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01524 (institution denied
`Dec. 4, 2017).
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01612 (joinder with IPR2017-
`00221 granted Oct. 3, 2017).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01636 (joinder with
`IPR2017-00221 granted Oct. 3, 2017).
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01802 (trial
`instituted Feb. 6, 2017)
`
`Google Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-02082 (institution decision
`pending).
`
`Google Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-02083 (institution decision
`pending).
`
`
`
`Google Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-02084 (institution decision
`pending).
`Petitioner also identifies the following administrative matters involving
`
`related applications and patents:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/633,057 (“the ’057 Application), filed
`on February 26, 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 9,621,490 (“the ’490
`Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/224,125 (“the ’125 Application), filed
`on March 25, 2014, now U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (“the ’433 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/546,673 (“the ’673 Application”), filed
`on July 11, 2012, now U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (“the ’622 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/398,063 (“the ’063 Application”), filed
`on March 4, 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,243,723 (“the ’723 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/398,076 (“the ’076 Application), filed
`on March 4, 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 (“the ’747 Patent”)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00222 (involving the
`’723 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00223 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`
`
`5.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00224 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00225 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01257 (involving the
`’747 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01365 (involving the
`’723 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01427 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01428 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01611 (involving the ’433
`Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01634 (involving the
`’433 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01635 (involving the
`’723 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01667 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01668 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01797
`(involving the ’622 Patent)
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01798
`(involving the ’622 Patent)
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-01799
`(involving the ’747 Patent).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01800
`(involving the ’723 Patent)
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01801
`(involving the ’433 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01804 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01805 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Google LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-
`02080 (involving the’622 Patent)
`
`Google, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02081 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`Google, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02085 (involving the
`’747 Patent)
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02087
`(involving the ’433 Patent)
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02088
`(involving the ’433 Patent)
`
`Huawei device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02090
`(involving the ’622 Patent)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2018-00579 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2018-00580 (involving the
`’622 Patent)
`Joinder Petitioners are also filing a motion to join IPR2017-01799 regarding
`
`the ’747 Patent and a related petition challenging claims 2 and 12 of the ’747 Patent.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`First Backup Counsel
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite
`700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`T: (703) 456-8668
`F: (703) 456-8100
`
`Second Backup Counsel
`
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro
`hac vice pending)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lowell Mead (Admission pro hac vice
`pending)
`lmead@cooley.com
`Tel: (650) 843-5734
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Lisa F. Schwier (Reg. No. 67,222)
`lschwier@cooley.com
`Tel: (202) 842-7876
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`Joinder Petitioners consent to electronic service at the addresses provided for
`
`lead and back-up counsel. Joinder Petitioners’ Power of Attorney is being filed
`
`concurrently herewith in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`
`
`8.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`This Petition requests review of three (3) claims of the ’890 patent.
`
`Accordingly, a payment of $23,000 is submitted herewith. This payment is
`
`calculated 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). If additional fees are
`
`due at any time during this proceeding, the Director is hereby authorized to charge
`
`such fees to Cooley LLP’s deposit account number 50-1283.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Joinder Petitioners certify that the ’890 Patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Joinder Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds
`
`identified below.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Claims 9, 23, and 57 of the ’890 Patent should be cancelled as unpatentable
`
`based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claim 9 is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”) (Ex. 1005) and International Patent
`
`Application No. WO 01/11824A2 (“Zydney”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
`
`
`9.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`Ground 2: Claims 23 and 57 are each obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Griffin, Zydney, and U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 (“Malik”) (Ex. 1012).2
`
`The ’890 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 10/740,030 (Ex. 1004),
`
`filed on December 18, 2003. Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding only,
`
`Petitioner assumes the earliest effective filing date of the ’890 Patent is December
`
`18, 2003 .
`
`Griffin was filed on July 17, 2002, and Malik was filed on April 19, 2002, and
`
`thus are each prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Zydney was
`
`published on February 15, 2001, and thus is prior art at least under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`None of the references in Grounds 1-2 were considered during prosecution of
`
`the ’890 Patent. While certain secondary references are at issue in the other IPRs
`
`challenging the ’890 patent (Part II.B), Grounds 1-2 rely on Griffin as a primary
`
`reference, which is not at issue in the other IPRs. Thus, the Board should consider
`
`and adopt Grounds 1-2 because they are different than those in the other IPRs.
`
`
`2 For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on any prior art reference
`
`other than those listed here. Other references discussed herein are provided to show
`
`the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics
`
`v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`10.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’890 Patent (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least
`
`two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., network communication systems.
`
`More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶1-58.)3
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an IPR, a claim that will not expire before final written decision receives
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). The ’890 Patent will not expire before final written decision. Therefore,
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applies.4 Because the Board
`
`need not construe the challenged claims to resolve the underlying controversy, for
`
`
`3 Petitioner submits the testimony of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’890 Patent. (Id., ¶¶1-58; Ex. 1003.)
`
`4 Because of the different standards used in this proceeding and in district courts,
`
`any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation
`
`related to the ’890 Patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not concede that the challenged
`
`claims are not invalid for reasons not raised herein.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`purposes of this proceeding, the challenged claims should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning under the BRI standard. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys.,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015). Thus, Petitioner applies
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning to the challenged claims herein. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60.)
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’890 PATENT AND PRIOR ART, AND
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`As explained in detail by Dr. Haas, the ’890 Patent is directed to instant voice
`
`messaging over a packet-switched network that interconnects clients via a server.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:36-60, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-58.) Below, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates why the challenged claims of the ’890 Patent are unpatentable over the
`
`prior art references listed in Part IV, which are discussed in detail below.
`
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Renders Obvious Claim 9
`1.
`Claim 15
`a.
`“An instant voice messaging system for delivering
`instant messages over a packet-switched network, the
`system comprising:”
`To the extent that the preamble is limiting, Griffin discloses these features.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-69, 79-92.) Griffin discloses a messaging system for delivering real-
`
`
`5 Although Joinder Petitioners are not seeking institution on claim 1, claim 9 depends
`
`from claim 1 and the analysis for claim 1 from the Original Petition is therefore
`
`included.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`time speech (i.e., voice) chat messages to mobile terminals 100 over a packet-based
`
`communications network 203.6 (Ex. 1005, Figs. 2-3 (below), 1:7-11, 3:49-5:15,
`
`4:11-18, 7:8-11.)
`
`
`
`Griffin’s system is an “instant voice messaging system,” as claimed. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶84-88.) For example, Griffin explains that messages transmitted between
`
`terminals 100 via server 204 may be speech (i.e., voice) chat messages. (Ex. 1005,
`
`Title (“Voice and Text Group Chat”), 1:7-11, 3:20-22, 3:28-30, 4:11-18, 4:27-29,
`
`4:40-44, 4:52-56 (encoding/decoding speech using a “voice codec”), 4:62-65, 5:9-
`
`15, 6:38-44, 8:47-52, 9:27-31, 10:36-43 (“speech content of an outbound voice
`
`message”), 10:53-58, 11:42-12:3, 12:24-28, 12:38-47.)
`
`
`6 Each speech message is either an “inbound (i.e., received by the user’s mobile
`
`terminal)” or an “outbound (i.e., sent by the user’s mobile terminal)” message. (Ex.
`
`1005, 1:40-44; id., 5:6-9.)
`
`
`
`13.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`Additionally, each message is an “instant” voice message, as claimed, because
`
`it is transmitted in “real-time.” (Id., 1:6-11; id., 4:11-18, 4:40-56, 4:62-65, 5:2-15,
`
`6:38-44, 6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:8-14, 8:47-52, 9:27-31, 10:36-52, 11:42-47, 12:1-17.)
`
`Indeed, Griffin’s description of real-time speech messaging is consistent with how
`
`instant voice messaging is described in the specification of the ’890 Patent, and was
`
`understood in the art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶17-30, 44-50, 87-88; Ex. 1024, 435, 936; Ex.
`
`1025, 3-4; Ex. 1026, 1; Ex. 1028, 4-6, 11-14, 18, 218, Fig. 1.2; Ex. 1029, 9-10; Ex.
`
`1030, 3; Ex. 1032, 36; Ex. 1034, 1-2; Ex. 1036, ¶¶3-9; Ex. 1037, 2:12-3:27, 3:9-27.)7
`
`For example, like the system/process described in the specification of the ’890 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:23-35, 7:58-8:29, 11:4-52), Griffin’s system/process includes terminals
`
`100 that are presented with information regarding the availability of other terminals
`
`100 for messaging and facilitates the immediate transmission of speech messages
`
`between available terminals 100 via server 204 (Ex. 1005, 1:6-11, 4:11-18, 6:56-7:1,
`
`7:8-17, 8:47-52, 9:23-31).
`
`Griffin’s speech messages are also transmitted over a “packet-switched
`
`network,” as claimed. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶89-91.) For example, as shown in Figure 2,
`
`Griffin explains that “data packets” (e.g., messages) communicated between
`
`
`7 These other exhibits are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and are not
`
`relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra footnote 2.)
`
`
`
`14.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`terminals 100 via server 204 are transmitted through network 203. (Ex. 1005, 3:51-
`
`65; id., 4:44-51, Fig. 2.) Network 203 “is a packet-based network,” such as “the
`
`Internet or World Wide Web, a private network such as a corporate intranet, or a
`
`combination of public and private network elements.” (Id., 3:59-65.) As
`
`acknowledged in the ’890 Patent, and as was well known in the art, the Internet is a
`
`packet-switched network. (Ex. 1001, 1:26-32, 1:40-44, 6:59-61; Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-47,
`
`90-91; Ex. 1024, 838-39, 894, 935-36; Ex. 1027, 89-93; Ex. 1031, 24-25, 157-58.)8
`
`(Parts VIII.A.1.b-1.e.)
`
`b.
`
`“a client connected to the network, the client selecting
`one or more recipients, generating an instant voice
`message therefor, and transmitting the selected
`recipients and the instant voice message therefor over
`the network; and”
`This limitation is discussed below in three parts.
`
`(1)
`“a client connected to the network,...”
`Griffin discloses these features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶93-105.) As discussed above,
`
`Griffin’s system includes terminals 100 (“client”) that exchange speech messages
`
`over network 203 (“packet-switched network”). (Ex. 1005, Figs. 1-2, 1:7-11, 3:14-
`
`
`8 Exhibits 1024, 1027, 1031 are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and are
`
`not relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra footnote 2.)
`
`
`
`15.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`48, 3:49-65, 4:11-18.) As shown in Figure 1, terminal 100 may comprise “any
`
`wireless communication device” (e.g., a PDA). (Id., 3:14-48.)
`
`Terminal 100 stores and executes “machine-readable and executable
`
`instructions (typically referred to as software, code, or program)” to perform the
`
`messaging functionalities described in Griffin. (Id., 4:29-61; id., 3:43-48, 4:40-61,
`
`12:61-63.)
`
`As shown in Figure 2 (below), Griffin explains that terminal 100 is connected
`
`to network 203, such that “data packets” (e.g., messages) communicated between
`
`terminals 100 via server 204 are transmitted through network 203.9 (Id., 3:51-65; id.,
`
`4:44-51, Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`That terminal 100 is connected to network 203 indirectly via infrastructure
`
`202 does not alter this conclusion, because a POSA would have understood that the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “client connected to the network” under the BRI
`
`
`9 All highlighting in reproduced figures has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`standard encompasses an indirect connection to a packet-switched network. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶96.) This understanding is confirmed by the claims and the specification of
`
`the ’890 Patent, neither of which require a direct connection. (Id.) To the contrary,
`
`the specification contemplates an indirect connection to a packet-switched network,
`
`e.g., via a PSTN. (Ex. 1001, 1:55-2:10; id., 7:27-39.) Even if the claim imposed such
`
`a requirement, however, it would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the
`
`alleged invention to modify Griffin’s system/process such that terminal 100 is
`
`directly connected to network 203 in view of the teachings of Zydney. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶97-105.)
`
`Zydney describes a system including sender software agent 22, recipient
`
`software agent 28, and central server 24, which together facilitate instant voice
`
`messaging between agents. (Ex. 1006, 10:19-11:6; Ex. 1002, ¶¶70-75, 98-99.)
`
`Agents 22, 28 may be implemented on any suitable client device (e.g., PDA). (Ex.
`
`1006, 11:14-20.) As shown in Figure 1 (below), agents 22, 28 communicate with
`
`one another and with server 24 via a direct connection to the Internet through
`
`transmission line 26. (Id., Figs. 1-2; id., 1:2-3, 2:6-10, 5:3-7, 5:15-18, 10:11-16,
`
`14:2-5, 23:11-12.) Accordingly, Zydney discloses that agents 22, 28 and server 24
`
`are directly connected to a packet-switched network (e.g., Internet). (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶100.)
`
`
`
`17.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`
`Accordingly, a POSA would have been motivated to modify Griffin’s
`
`system/process so that terminal 100 is directly connected to network 203, similar to
`
`as described in Zydney. (Id., ¶¶100-105.) KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 417 (2007). For example, a POSA would have been aware of the well-known
`
`benefits of directly connecting to network 203 (e.g., Ethernet), instead of or in
`
`addition to an indirect connection via infrastructure 202. (Ex. 1002, ¶101.) In
`
`particular, as a POSA would have known, each type of connection has advantages
`
`over the other that would allow each to offer higher quality services under disparate
`
`conditions. (Id.) For example, while infrastructure 202 may have provided access to
`
`network 203 over a larger geographical area, a direct connection may have provided
`
`a more reliable and faster transfer speed of messages and/or allowed for unimpeded
`
`
`
`18.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`communication in the event infrastructure 202 is slow or unavailable. (Id., ¶102.)
`
`Additionally, a POSA would have known that a direct connection would not have
`
`required payment of a service fee to a wireless carrier to use infrastructure 202. (Id.)
`
`Thus, a POSA would have understood that direct and indirect connections to
`
`network 203 would have been complementary technologies. (Id.)
`
`A POSA would have also recognized that such a modification would have
`
`been nothing more than a simple substitution of one known technology (e.g., a direct
`
`network connection, such as described in Zydney) for another (e.g., an indirect
`
`network connection, such as described in Griffin), or a combination of such
`
`technologies by known methods without changing their respective functions, to
`
`achieve the predictable result of a client device directly connected to a packet-
`
`switched network for communicating speech messages. (Id., ¶¶31-41, 48-51, 103-
`
`04; Ex. 1033, 17-18; Ex. 1035, 136, Ex. 1036, ¶17; Ex. 1037, 1:23-26; Ex. 1038,
`
`1:12-13; Ex. 1039, ¶18.)10 KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`Moreover, because both Griffin and Zydney are in the same technical field of
`
`network communication systems, teach solutions to common problems in the field,
`
`and disclose technologies that were well known, similar, and compatible, a POSA
`
`
`10 These other exhibits are cited only to demonstrate the state of the art and are not
`
`relied upon as a basis for this ground. (See supra footnote 2.)
`
`
`
`19.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,535,890
`would have been encouraged to look to Zydney to complement the teachings of
`
`Griffin. (Ex. 1005, 1:8-12, 3:59-65, 4:10-15; Ex. 1006, Abstract, 5:1-5, 10:11-18;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶105.)
`
`(2)
`
`“...the client selecting one or more recipients,
`generating an instant voice message therefor,...”
`Griffin discloses these features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶106-110.) As shown in Figure 9
`
`(below), Griffin explains that terminal 100 (“client”) displays a “buddy list” having
`
`entries each representing a “buddy” (“recipients”) that can be selected for sending
`
`an outbound speech (i.e., voice) chat message 400 (“instant voice message”)
`
`generated by terminal 100. (Ex. 1005, 8:39-52; id., 3:22-23, 8:15-17, 9:23-31, 9:32-
`
`33.) To generate an outbound message 400, a user causes terminal 100 to sele