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. 8,199,747
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`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. 8,199,747
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................. 1 
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1 
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1 
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information ......................................................... 7 
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 8 
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 9 
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 9 
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 10 
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’747 PATENT AND PRIOR ART .......................... 11 
`A.
`The ’747 Patent .................................................................................. 11 
`B. Griffin (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................... 13 
`C.
`Zydney (Ex. 1006) .............................................................................. 15 
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 18 
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ......................... 19 
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 2 and
`12 ........................................................................................................ 19 
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 19 
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 46 
`3.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 59 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 61 
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 6
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................................................passim
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ............................................ 16
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Description
`
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`1003
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas
`1004
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/398,076, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 8,150,922 (“Griffin”)
`1006
`International Published Application No. WO 01/11824A2 (“Zydney”)
`1007
`RESERVED
`1008
`International Published Application No. WO 02/17650A1
`1009
`-
`1012
`1013 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
`(Sept. 1993)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`1014
`-
`1020
`1021
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/740,030, which issued
`as U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`1023
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`Am., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-642 (Lead Case) (E.D. Tex.)
`1024 Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16th. ed. 2000)
`
`
`1Citations 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. 8,199,747
`
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`John Rittinghouse, IM Instant Messaging Security (1st ed. 2005)
`1025
`1026 Dreamtech Software Team, Instant Messaging Systems: Cracking the
`Code (2002)
`1027 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)
`Trushar Barot & Eytan Oren, Guide to Chat Apps, TOW Center for
`Digital Journalism, Columbia University (2005)
`Samir Chatterj ee et al., Instant Messaging and Presence
`Technologies for College Campuses, IEEE Network (Nov. 9, 2005)
`1031 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)
`1033 Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th. ed. 2002)
`1034
`Justin Berg, The IEEE 802.11 Standardization Its History,
`Specification, Implementations and Future, George Mason
`University, Technical Report Series (2011)
`1035 Wolter Lemstra & Vic Hayes, Unlicensed Innovation: The Case of
`Wi-Fi, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries (2008, Vol.
`9, No. 2)
`1036 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0039340
`1037
`International Published Application No. WO 01/24036
`1038 U.S. Patent No. 9,179,495
`1039 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0025080
`
`1032
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`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 2 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747. 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 2 and 12, with pending
`
`proceeding IPR2017-01799.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Joinder Petitioners request inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 2 and 12
`
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 (“the ’747 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`According to PTO records, the ’747 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 ’747 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.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BlackBerry Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`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.)
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`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.)
`
`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. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00476-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Kik Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00483-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The ’747 Patent has been challenged in the following inter partes review
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`proceedings:
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01257 (filed April 7,
`2017) (institution denied on Dec. 4, 2017).
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-01799
`(filed July 20, 2017) (trial instituted on claims 2 and 12 on Feb. 6,
`2018).
`
`
`
`Google, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02085 (filed
`September 11, 2017) (institution decision pending).
`Petitioner also identifies the following administrative matters involving
`
`related applications and patents:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 10/740,030 (“the ’030 Application”),
`filed on December 18, 2003, now U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 (“the
`’890 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. 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. 14/633,057 (“the ’057 Application), filed
`on February 26, 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 9,621,490 (“the ’490
`Patent”).
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00220 (involving the
`’890 Patent).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00221 (involving the
`’890 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).
`
`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., IPR2017-01365 (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).
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01523 (involving the
`’890 Patent).
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01524 (involving the
`’890 Patent).
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01611 (involving the ’433
`Patent)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01612 (involving the ’890
`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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01636 (involving the
`’890 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 S.A., IPR2017-01800
`(involving the ’723 Patent).
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01801
`(involving the ’433 Patent).
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-01802
`(involving the ’890 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, IPR2017-02082 (involving the
`’890 Patent).
`
`Google, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02083 (involving the
`’890 Patent).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02084 (involving the
`’890 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 IPR2017-01802 regarding
`
`the ’890 Patent and a related petition challenging claims 9, 23, and 57 of the ’890
`
`Patent.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`First Backup Counsel
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`pmorton@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite
`700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Washington D.C. 20004
`T: (703) 456-8668
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`F: (703) 456-8100
`Second Backup Counsel
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro
`hac vice pending)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`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).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`This Petition requests review of two (2) claims of the ’747 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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Joinder Petitioners certify that the ’747 Patent is available for IPR, and that
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`Joinder Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds
`
`identified below.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Claims 2 and 12 of the ’747 Patent should be cancelled as unpatentable based
`
`on the following ground:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 2 and 12 are 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).2
`
`The ’747 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/398,076 (Ex. 1004),
`
`filed on March 4, 2009, and claims priority to the ’030 Application (Ex. 1021), filed
`
`on December 18, 2003, now the ’890 Patent (Ex. 1022). Accordingly, for purposes
`
`of this proceeding only, Joinder Petitioners assume the earliest effective filing date
`
`of the ’747 Patent is December 18, 2003.
`
`
`2 For each proposed ground, Joinder Petitioners do 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).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Griffin was filed on July 17, 2002, and thus is prior art at least under
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`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 Ground 1 were considered during prosecution of
`
`the ’747 Patent. While Zydney is at issue in a different IPR challenging the ’747
`
`patent (Part II.B), Ground 1 relies on Griffin as a primary reference, which is not at
`
`issue in the other IPR. Thus, the Board should consider and adopt Ground 1
`
`because it is different than the grounds in the other IPR.
`
`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 ’747 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, ¶¶15-16.)3
`
`
`3 Joinder Petitioners submit the testimony of Dr. Zygmunt J. Haas (Ex. 1002), an
`
`expert in the field of the ’747 Patent. (Id., ¶¶1-58; Ex. 1003.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’747 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`A. The ’747 Patent
`Although the ’747 Patent acknowledges that telephone communications
`
`systems, voice messaging systems, and text messaging systems were all known
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:20-2:42, Fig. 1), the ’747 Patent purports to address a need to provide
`
`“local and global instant voice messaging over VoIP with PSTN support.” (Id.,
`
`Abstract, 2:43-49). For instance, with reference to Figure 2 (below), the ’747 Patent
`
`discloses a system having one or more instant voice message (IVM) clients 206, 208
`
`and an IVM server 202 connected over a packet-switched network 204. (Id., 2:56-
`
`67, Fig. 2.)
`
`
`
`FIG. 2
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the IVM client 208 and server 302 are both
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`described as a “general-purpose programmable computer” with various generic
`
`components and/or functionalities, which work in conjunction to provide the
`
`described instant voice messaging features. (Id., 11:65-12:44, 13:34-67, Figs. 3-4.)
`
`The ’747 Patent describes two methods for sending instant voice messages.
`
`In “record mode,” a user operates the IVM client to record a message (e.g., digitized
`
`audio file) for one or more selected recipients. (Id., 7:61-8:10.) The IVM client
`
`transmits the voice message to the IVM server for delivery to the recipients. (Id.,
`
`8:18-21.) If a recipient is “available,” the server transmits the instant voice message
`
`to the recipient. (Id., 8:28-30.) If the recipient is “unavailable,” the server
`
`temporarily saves the voice message and transmits it once the recipient becomes
`
`available. (Id., 8:31-35.)
`
`In “intercom mode,” successive portions of the instant voice message are
`
`automatically written to one or more buffers of a predetermined size generated by
`
`the IVM client or IVM server. (Id., 11:29-35.) Once a buffer is full, its content is
`
`automatically transmitted to the IVM server 202 for transmission to the one or
`
`more IVM recipients. (Id., 11:35-55.) This buffering and transmission process is
`
`repeated until the entire instant voice message has been transmitted to the server.
`
`(Id.; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-58.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`B. Griffin (Ex. 1005)
`As shown in Figure 2 (below), Griffin describes a system for exchanging
`
`speech (i.e., voice) chat messages in real time between wireless mobile terminals
`
`100 via server complex 204. (Ex. 1005, 1:6-12, 3:49-4:11, Figs. 2-3.)
`
`FIG. 2
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 9 (below), to generate and transmit a voice message, a
`
`user operating a mobile terminal 100 may select one or more recipients from a
`
`“buddy list” and record the message by activating a “push-to-talk” button 101 and
`
`speaking into the microphone 107. (Id., 9:23-31; see also id., 3:28-30, 8:39-52, 8:64-
`
`67.) Griffin refers to a message transmitted by terminal 100 as an “outbound chat
`
`message 400.” (Id., 1:40-44, 4:44-48, 4:62-65, 5:2-9, Fig. 4.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`The outbound chat message 400 is transmitted to the server complex 204
`
`through a wireless carrier’s infrastructure 202 to a “packet-based” communication
`
`network 203, which “may comprise a public network, such as the Internet or World
`
`Wide Web, a private network such as a corporate intranet, or some combination of
`
`public and private network elements.” (Id., 3:51-65.) Upon receipt, server complex
`
`204 composes and transmits over network 203 a message to each recipient terminal
`
`100 that is determined to be available based on the “current status 702”
`
`corresponding to each recipient terminal 100. (Id., 6:56-7:1, 7:8-11, 5:11-30.) If the
`
`user is unable to view the message, the recipient terminal 100 and/or the server
`
`complex 204 may queue the message for subsequent playback. (Id., 11:48-65.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Griffin refers to a message transmitted by server complex 204 and received
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`by a recipient terminal 100 as an “inbound chat message 500.” (Id., 1:40-44, 4:44-
`
`48, 5:2-9, Fig. 5.) According to Griffin, inbound chat message 500 “is largely a
`
`copy of an outbound chat message 400 sent from a terminal 100 to the server
`
`complex 204.” (Id., 7:19-22.) Therefore, the inbound chat message 500 “preferably
`
`comprises the original outbound message 400,” as well as “a definition of new users
`
`not known to ... the terminal 100 (i.e., not already in the receiver’s buddy-list).” (Id.,
`
`7:22-25; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-70.)
`
`C.
`Zydney (Ex. 1006)
`As shown in Figure 1 (below), Zydney describes a system having a central
`
`server 24 that facilitates the exchange of instant voice messages between a sender
`
`device 22 and a recipient device 28 over a packet-switched network (e.g., the
`
`Internet). (Ex. 1006, Abstract, 10:11-11:6, Fig. 1.) Devices 22 and 28 may comprise
`
`a personal computer, wireless handheld computer (e.g. PDA), digital telephone, or
`
`beeper (id., 11:16-18), which is loaded with a software agent to perform the speech
`
`chat messaging functionalities described in Zydney. (Id., 14:2-5, 14:15-16).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`Zydney explains that central server 24 maintains and conveys the connectivity
`
`status of each agent in the network. (Id., 13:12-14, 14:6-9, 14:19-22, 30:13-15.) A
`
`software agent’s connectivity status includes “the core states of whether the recipient
`
`is online or offline, but also offers related status information, for example whether
`
`the recipient does not want to be disturbed.” (Id., 14:17-15:1, 32:9-33:2.) For
`
`instance, if an agent is “logged onto the system” and available for messaging, the
`
`agent’s connectivity status is “Available.” (Id., 32:9-20.) If the agent is logged off
`
`of the system, the agent’s connectivity status is “Not logged on.” (Id., 33:1-2.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Zydney discloses two different modes of generating an instant voice message
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`based on the connectivity status of the agent, a “pack and send” mode and an
`
`“intercom” mode. In pack-and-send mode, if the recipient is available (e.g., online),
`
`the voice message is placed into a “voice container” and transmitted to the recipient
`
`immediately. (Id., 1:21-22, 10:20-11:3, 15:8-14, Fig. 4.) If the recipient is
`
`unavailable (e.g., offline), the voice container is temporarily stored at the server until
`
`the recipient is available. (Id., 13:12-15, 14:9-16, 15:15-15, Fig. 4.) In intercom
`
`mode, the audio message is also digitally recorded, however, only “a small portion
`
`of the digitized voice is stored to account for the requirements of the Internet
`
`protocols for retransmission and then transmitted before the entire conversation has
`
`been completed.” (Id., 16:4-7; see also id., 15:8-10.)
`
`While the specification of Zydney primarily focuses on the embodiments
`
`illustrated in Figures 1-3, Zydney also describes a number of other embodiments
`
`with reference to Figures 4-20. (Id., 34:13-36:5, Figs. 4-20.) For example, referring
`
`to Figure 8, Zydney describes an embodiment where all voice containers are
`
`uploaded to the central server, after which the central server determines the
`
`availability of recipients. (Id., Fig. 8.) Depending on the availability of a recipient,
`
`the central server either transmits the voice container immediately to the recipient or
`
`temporarily stores the voice container for deliver once the recipient becomes
`
`available. (Id.; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶71-76.)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an IPR, a claim that will not expire before a final written decision is
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`issued receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The ’747 Patent will not
`
`expire before a final written decision will be issued. Therefore, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applies.4 Because the Board need not
`
`construe the challenged claims to resolve the underlying controversy, for 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 Systems, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Thus, Petitioner applies the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning to the challenged claims herein. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60.)
`
`
`4 Because of the different claim interpretation standards used in this proceeding and
`
`in district courts, any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon Petitioner in
`
`any litigation related to the ’747 Patent. Moreover, Petitioner does not concede that
`
`the challenged claims are not invalid for reasons not raised herein, including under
`
`one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1 – Griffin and Zydney Render Obvious Claims 2 and 12
`1.
`Claim 15
`a.
`“A method for instant voice messaging over a packet-
`switched network, the method comprising”
`To the extent the preamble is construed to be limiting, Griffin discloses these
`
`features. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶77-87.) As shown in Figure 2 (below), Griffin describes a
`
`messaging system and method for exchanging real-time speech (i.e., voice) chat
`
`messages between mobile terminals 100 over a packet-based communications
`
`network 203.6 (Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (showing a system for exchanging messages
`
`including terminals 100, network 203, and server complex 204), Fig. 3 (same), 1:6-
`
`12, 1:7-11, 3:49-5:15 (describing the system features shown in Figures 2-3).)
`
`
`5 Although Joinder Petitioners do not seek institution on Claim 1, the analysis of
`
`claim 1 from the Original Petition has been included to support cross-references
`
`within the analysis for claims 2 and 12 below.
`
`6 Each speech chat 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; see also id., 5:6-9.)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`
`
`The disclosed method is “for instant messaging,” as claimed. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶79.) For example, Griffin explains that the messages transmitted between
`
`terminals 100 and server complex 204 may be speech (i.e., voice) chat messages.
`
`(Ex. 1005, Title (“Voice and Text Group Chat”), 1:7-11 (“real-time speech...
`
`conversations”), 3:20-22 (“a speaker 103 for rendering signals, such as received
`
`speech, audible”), 3:28-30 (“a push-to-talk button 101 that allows the user to initiate
`
`recording and transmission of audio”), 4:11-18 (“speech” data), 4:27-29 (“speech...
`
`chat messages”), 4:40-44 (“capture speech from the microphone 107”), 4:52-56
`
`(encoding/decoding speech using a “voice codec”), 4:62-65 (“speech and text
`
`messages”), 5:9-15 (“speech and/or text messages”), 6:38-44 (“speech” message
`
`type), 8:47-52 (“chat communication message”), 9:27-31 (“record and transmit a
`
`speech”), 10:36-43 (“speech content of an outbound voice message”), 10:53-58,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`11:42-12:3 (“recording and transfer of a speech chat message”), 12:24- 28, 12:38-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`47 (“playing back the available speech”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶59-60.)
`
`Additionally, each speech (i.e., voice) chat message is an “instant” voice
`
`message, as claimed, because it is a voice message transmitted in “real-time” to an
`
`available recipient terminal 100. (Id., 1:6-11; see also id., 4:11-18, 4:40-56
`
`(“capture speech from
`
`the microphone 107”), 4:62-65 (“speech and
`
`text
`
`messages”), 5:2-15, 6:38-44, 6:56-7:1, 7:8-17, 8:8-14, 8:47-52 (“buddy list”
`
`displays “buddy’s presence status 911” indicating availability for real-time
`
`messaging), 9:27-31 (“the user is able to record and transmit a speech”), 10:36-52
`
`(“voice message”), 11:42-47 (“the recording and transfer of a speech chat message
`
`begins”), 12:1-17 (“recording and transmitting an outbound speech message”); Ex.
`
`1002, ¶81.) Indeed, Griffin’s description of real-time speech chat messaging is
`
`consistent with how instant voice messaging is described in the specification of the
`
`’747 Patent, and was understood in the art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶17-30, 82-83; Ex. 1024,
`
`435; 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. 1036, ¶¶3-9; Ex. 1037, 2:12-3:27, 3:9-27.)7 For example, like
`
`
`7 Exhibits 1024-1026, 1028-1030, 1036, and 1037 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.)
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`the system/process described in the specification of the ’747 Patent (Ex. 1001, 2:30-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,199,747
`
`42, 7:64-8:35, 11:26-55), Griffin’s system/process includes terminals 100 that are