Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`Issued: July 3, 2012
`Application No.: 12/324,122
`
`For: Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote
`Communications
`
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,213,970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 2
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 3
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 3
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 4
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 4
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`The ’970 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 4
`B.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1007, “FH”). .......................................... 5
`C.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art .............................................. 5
`D.
`Claim Construction (other than means-plus-function) .......................... 6
`1.
`Forced Message Alert ................................................................. 7
`2.
`Forced Message Alert [Application] Software Packet ............... 7
`3.
`Forced Message Alert Software Application Program ............... 8
`E. Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction .......................................... 10
`1.
`Claim 1[b]: data transmission means ........................................ 11
`2.
`Claim 1[e]: means for attaching a forced message alert
`software packet ......................................................................... 11
`Claim 1[f]: means for requiring manual response .................... 12
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`Claim 1[g]: means for receiving and displaying
`(automatic acknowledgement) .................................................. 12
`Claim 1[h]: means for periodically resending .......................... 13
`Claim 1[i]: means for receiving and displaying (manual
`response) ................................................................................... 14
`Claim 2[a]: means for transmitting the acknowledgment
`of receipt ................................................................................... 14
`Claim 2[b]: means for controlling ............................................ 15
`8.
`Claim 2[c]: means for allowing ................................................ 16
`9.
`10. Claim 2[d]: means for clearing ................................................. 16
`The ’970 Patent’s Earliest Effective Filing Date is November 26, 2008 ...... 17
`V.
`VI. The Asserted Prior Art ................................................................................... 19
`A. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0030977 (Ex.
`1004, “Casey”) .................................................................................... 19
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,589 (Ex. 1005, “Tanumihardja”) ..................... 21
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,232,971 (Ex. 1006, “Haynes”) ............................... 23
`C.
`VII. Claims 1-13 are unpatentable over the combination of Casey,
`Tanumihardja, and Haynes ............................................................................ 26
`A. Overview of the combination and the motivation to combine ............ 27
`B.
`Independent Claim 6 ........................................................................... 34
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 34
`Claim 6[a]: Accessing forced message alert software .............. 36
`Claim 6[b]: Creating the forced message alert ......................... 37
`Claim 6[c]: Designating message recipients ............................. 41
`Claim 6[d]: Electronically transmitting the alert ...................... 44
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`3.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 6[e]: Receive and display automatic
`acknowledgements .................................................................... 45
`Claim 6[f]: Periodically resending the alert .............................. 47
`Claim 6[g]: Receiving and displaying responses ...................... 48
`Claim 6[h]: Provide a manual response list cleared only
`by selecting a response .............................................................. 51
`Claim 6[i]: Clear display by selecting item from response
`list .............................................................................................. 56
`Independent Claim 10 ......................................................................... 56
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 57
`2.
`Claim 10[a]: Receiving a message ............................................ 57
`3.
`Claim 10[b]: Identifying said electronic message .................... 57
`4.
`Claim 10[c]: Automatic acknowledgment ................................ 58
`5.
`Claim 10[d]: Selected Required Response ............................... 58
`6.
`Claim 10[e]: Displaying the response ....................................... 58
`7.
`Claim 10[f]: Providing a list ..................................................... 58
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 58
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Claim 1[a]: Predetermined network of participants .................. 59
`3.
`Claim 1[b]: Data transmission means ....................................... 60
`4.
`Claim 1[c]: Sender and recipient PDA/cell phone ................... 61
`5.
`Claim 1[d]: Forced message alert software “including a
`list of required possible responses” .......................................... 61
`Claim 1[e]: Means for attaching ............................................... 62
`Claim 1[f]: Means for requiring manual response .................... 63
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`8.
`
`E.
`
`Claim 1[g]: Means for receiving and displaying a listing
`(automatic) ................................................................................ 63
`Claim 1[h]: Means for periodically resending .......................... 64
`9.
`10. Claim 1[i]: Means for receiving and displaying a listing
`(manual) .................................................................................... 64
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 65
`1.
`Claim 2[a]: Means for transmitting .......................................... 65
`2.
`Claim 2[b]: Means for controlling ............................................ 65
`3.
`Claim 2[c]: Means for allowing ................................................ 66
`4.
`Claim 2[d]: Means for clearing ................................................. 66
`Dependent Claim 3 .............................................................................. 67
`F.
`G. Dependent Claims 7 and 11 ................................................................ 67
`H. Dependent Claims 4, 8, and 12 ........................................................... 68
`I.
`Dependent Claims 5, 9, and 13 ........................................................... 68
`VIII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 69
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 70
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 17
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 6
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 17
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin Bederson In Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“Bederson
`Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin Bederson
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0030977 (“Casey”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,589 (“Tanumihardja”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,232,971 (“Haynes”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“FH”)
`
`Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`submitted in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“ʼ970 PICs”)
`
`APPLE COMPUTER, INC., MACINTOSH HUMAN INTERFACE GUIDELINES
`(1992) (“HIG”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0103072 (“Ko”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0081011 (“Sheldon”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,271,835 (“Hoeksma")
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0135615 (“Lang”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,440 (“Monnes”)
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Fisheye Menus, PROCEEDINGS OF ACM
`SYMPOSIUM ON USER INTERFACE SOFTWARE AND TECHNOLOGY 217
`(2000)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`Donald A. Norman, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY THINGS,
`Chapter 1, THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY THINGS, 1-33
`(1998)
`
`Jakob Nielsen, USABILITY ENGINEERING, 129-148 (1993)
`
`Ben Shneiderman, DESIGNING THE USER INTERFACE, STRATEGIES
`FOR EFFECTIVE HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION (3rd ed. 1998)
`
`Derek Ball & Dayton Foster, HOW TO DO EVERYTHING WITH YOUR
`TREO 600, 25-30 (2004)
`
`Redline comparison between the specifications of U.S. Application
`No. 11/612,830 and U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“830-122
`Comparison”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests inter partes review of Claims 1-13 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,213,970, “Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote
`
`Communications,” Ex. 1001 (the “’970 patent”), owned by AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`The ’970 patent is directed to sending urgent alert messages and making sure
`
`they are received by the user. The ’970 patent’s claims require sending an alert
`
`message, tracking which devices have received it, and tracking which users have
`
`viewed the alert. To make sure the user has received the alert, it is provided as a
`
`long-familiar type of alarm – a pop-up alert or voice alert that does not allow the
`
`user to take any other actions until the user responds to it.
`
`This was well known before the ’970 patent. For example, a prior-art patent
`
`publication to Casey (Ex. 1004) teaches sending an alert message, tracking which
`
`devices have received it, and tracking which users have viewed the alert. To make
`
`sure the user has actually seen the alert, Casey displays the alert in a dialog that
`
`requires user action to acknowledge the alert. Further details of the sender’s and
`
`receiver’s user interfaces in similar systems are provided by Tanumihardja (Ex.
`
`1005), a prior-art patent. Haynes (Ex. 1006), also a prior-art patent, explains
`
`typical operating system features at the time, including the common options for
`
`controlling system behavior when a new window is opened.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`These prior-art references disclose the ’970 patent’s “forced message alert”
`
`and each other limitation of the challenged claims. The Board should therefore
`
`institute review and find all claims of the ’970 patent unpatentable.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real party in interest is Apple Inc. No other parties exercised or could
`
`have exercised control over this petition, or funded or directed this petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’970 patent is asserted against Apple in the following case that may be
`
`affected by a decision in this proceeding: AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`In addition, the ’970 patent is asserted against third parties in four litigations:
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No.
`
`2:17-cv-00515 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corporation
`
`et al., No. 2:17-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC
`
`Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Apple is also filing IPR petitions challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055,
`
`9,445,251, and 9,467,838, which are asserted in the above litigations.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`Apple certifies that the ’970 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Apple is not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`D. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Apple
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012), matthew.moore@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2278
`
`Apple also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144), bob.steinberg@lw.com, Latham
`
`& Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000; Washington,
`
`DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2301.
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724), jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2362.
`
`• Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018) lisa.nguyen@lw.com, Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP; 140 Scott Drive; Menlo Park, CA 94025;
`
`650.470.4848.
`
`• David A. Zucker (Reg. No. 74,095), david.zucker@lw.com, Latham
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`& Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000; Washington,
`
`DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2214.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from Apple is attached.
`
`Apple consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Claims 1-13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Casey (Ex. 1004),
`
`Tanumihardja (Ex. 1005), and Haynes (Ex. 1006).
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’970 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’970 patent describes and claims sending forced message alerts and
`
`monitoring receipts and responses thereto. Because the message alerts are urgent,
`
`the
`
`recipient’s device
`
`(cell phone, PDA, computer, etc.) automatically
`
`acknowledges receipt of the alert and does not clear the alert until the user
`
`responds to it. If a recipient’s device does not automatically acknowledge receipt,
`
`the sender’s device will periodically resend the alert until receipt is acknowledged.
`
`’970 patent at Abstract, 7:42-8:53; Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 27-36.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`The patent uses multiple terms relating to “forced messages” to describe the
`
`straightforward elements of the claimed invention. For example, a “forced message
`
`alert software application program”
`
`is, under
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation, merely the software that performs the steps of creating and
`
`processing forced message alerts. ’970 patent at Abstract, 2:8-35. A “forced
`
`message alert” is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, just the actual alert
`
`message (voice or text) and a “forced message alert application software packet”
`
`which accompanies the alert message. E.g., ’970 patent at claims 1, 4, 5.
`
`B.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1007, “FH”).
`The application underlying the ’970 patent was initially filed on November
`
`26, 2008. The Examiner did not analyze the prior art or teachings presented herein.
`
`In response to rejections over other prior art, the applicant amended its pending
`
`claims on December 17, 2010, and September 9, 2011, putting the claims in their
`
`present form. FH at 81-92, 120-131. The examiner issued a notice of allowance on
`
`April 25, 2012 (FH at 146), and the patent issued on July 3, 2012.
`
`C. The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or
`
`computer engineering, or a related field, and at least two to three years’ experience
`
`in mobile development,
`
`including designing and
`
`implementing software
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`applications for mobile communications systems. The POSA would have been
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`capable of implementing mobile messaging systems and their user interfaces.
`
`This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may
`
`make up for less experience, and vice-versa. For example, a M.S. in the above
`
`fields and a substantial amount of relevant experience would also qualify.
`
`D. Claim Construction (other than means-plus-function)
`Because the ’970 patent has not expired, the Board applies the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This claim construction standard is different
`
`from—and broader than—that applied in district court. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v.
`
`SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2015).1
`
`All means-plus-function terms are addressed in the section immediately
`
`following this one. All remaining claim terms have been accorded their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`1 Apple does not contend that the meaning of any claim terms are necessarily as
`
`broad under the Phillips rubric as they are under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. Apple reserves the right to argue alternative and narrower
`
`definitions before a district court. This includes arguing that certain terms not
`
`construed in this petition should be construed in the district court, as well as
`
`arguing that certain terms are indefinite
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`1.
`Forced Message Alert
`The term “forced message alert” appears in all of the claims. The broadest
`
`reasonable construction of this term, consistent with the claims and the
`
`specification, includes: (1) a voice or text message and (2) a forced message alert
`
`application software packet that triggers the activation of the forced message alert
`
`software application program within a recipient’s device (e.g., PDA/cell phone).
`
`Bederson Decl. ¶ 48.
`
`Apple’s proposed construction follows from the use of “forced message
`
`alert” in all claims. For example, claim 6 recites “creating a forced message alert”
`
`by “attaching a forced message alert software packet to a voice or text message.”
`
`This definition also follows from the specification, which states that a
`
`“forced voice alert is comprised of a text or voice message file and a forced alert
`
`software packet” and that a recipient device “identifies the transmission as a forced
`
`message alert and the forced message alert software application program on the
`
`recipient PC or PDA/cell phone separates the text or voice message and the forced
`
`message alert software packet.” ’970 patent at 2:12-14; 8:22-25.
`
`2.
`Forced Message Alert [Application] Software Packet
`Claim 1 recites a “forced message alert software packet,” and claims 6 and
`
`10 recite a “forced message alert application software packet.” Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, this term means data included in a forced message alert,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`beyond the voice or text message, which triggers the forced message alert software
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`in a recipient’s device to perform its functions. Claim 10; Bederson Decl. ¶ 49.
`
`The claims support this definition, and also list the types of data that can be
`
`included in the packet, including information necessary for handling the alert and
`
`response lists. For example, claim 1 explains that the packet’s data may inform the
`
`recipient’s system how to handle the alert, reciting that “said forced message alert
`
`software packet contain[s] a list of possible required responses and requir[es] the
`
`forced message alert software on said recipient PDA/cell phone to transmit an
`
`automatic acknowledgment to the sender . . .”. Further, claims 8 and 9 recite
`
`“wherein said forced message alert application software packet contains a response
`
`list.”
`
`This definition is also consistent with the specification, which uses the term
`
`“packet” only twice. ’970 patent at 2:14 (providing no further explanation); and
`
`8:24-29
`
`(further
`
`explaining
`
`that
`
`the
`
`receiving device
`
`transmits
`
`its
`
`acknowledgement after separating the packet from the text or voice message).
`
`Additionally, a POSA would have understood a “packet”
`
`in computer-
`
`implemented communications to comprise data. Bederson Decl. ¶ 49.
`
`3.
`Forced Message Alert Software Application Program
`All of the claims recite a “forced message alert software application
`
`program.” Under the broadest reasonable construction, this phrase includes
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`software used to create, send, receive, display, acknowledge, respond to, and/or
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`track the forced message alerts. Bederson Decl. ¶ 51.
`
`The proposed construction follows from the claims. The individual claims
`
`recite this term to cover software performing one or more of the steps in the
`
`proposed construction. For example, claim 1 recites that the software provides the
`
`response list to be sent with the alert. Claim 6 recites accessing the software,
`
`followed by the steps of creating, sending, receiving, displaying, and responding to
`
`a forced message alert. Claim 10 recites that the software on the recipient’s device
`
`(PDA/cell phone) acknowledges the alert, displays it, and requires the user to
`
`select a response from a list.
`
`The specification further explains that alert software may perform any or all
`
`of creating, sending, receiving, displaying, acknowledging, responding to, and
`
`tracking forced message alerts. ’970 patent at Abstract (“The system and method
`
`enabled by the force [sic] message alert software application program provides the
`
`ability to [listing the functions]”), ’970 patent at 2:8-35 (PCs, PDAs, and cell
`
`phones with “the forced alert software installed” have “the ability to: [listing of the
`
`functions]”). The claimed “forced message alert software application program”
`
`thus is capable of performing each of the listed functions and is used to perform
`
`one or more of those functions expressly required by it in a particular claim.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`E. Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104, and for the purposes of this proceeding only,
`
`Apple identifies the following means-plus-function terms, their functions, and the
`
`specific portions of the specification that, under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, describe the corresponding structures. Apple adopts and proposes as
`
`a broadest reasonable construction the functions and corresponding structure for
`
`each term in line with the functions and structures as they were identified by AGIS
`
`in its non-confidential infringement contentions, including flow charts identified
`
`by AGIS as allegedly disclosing algorithms for computer-implemented functions.
`
`ʼ970 PICs (Ex. 1008).2
`
`
`2 In other venues applying different claim construction standards, Apple does not
`
`concede that a sufficient algorithm is disclosed for the computer-implemented
`
`functions, and reserves the right to challenge the claims for lack of sufficient
`
`disclosed algorithms, or to propose alternative disclosed algorithms, in district
`
`court. Nonetheless, the prior art identified in this petition discloses the steps of
`
`each flow chart AGIS has alleged discloses corresponding algorithms for all
`
`means-plus-function terms below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`1.
`Claim 1[b]: data transmission means3
`The function for this element is “facilitating the transmission of electronic
`
`files between said PDA/cell phones in different locations,” and the claims should
`
`be construed to cover the corresponding structure, which is the “communications
`
`network server. [as described at] ’970 patent at 1:39-43; 2:36-43; Figs. 2, 3A, 3B,
`
`and 4.” ʼ970 PICs at A-4 (Ex. 1008); see also ’970 patent at 3:52-4:12 (further
`
`description of the server).
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1[e]: means for attaching a forced message alert
`software packet
`The function for this element is “attaching a forced message alert software
`
`packet to a voice or text message creating a forced message alert that is transmitted
`
`by said sender PDA/cell phone to the recipient PDA/cell phone,” and the claims
`
`should be construed to cover the corresponding structure, which is the “[a]lgorithm
`
`set forth in Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 7:8-63.” ʼ970 PICs at A-10.
`
`The cited sections describe creating a text message or recording a voice
`
`message, selecting a default response list or creating a new response list, and
`
`sending the voice/text message and response list in a forced message alert.
`
`Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 202-203.
`
`
`3 The claim element nomenclature, e.g., “Claim 1[b],” is set forth in the Claim
`
`Listing appended to this petition.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`3.
`Claim 1[f]: means for requiring manual response
`The function for this element is “requiring a required manual response from
`
`the response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from
`
`recipient’s cell phone display,” and the claims should be construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure, which is the “[a]lgorithm set forth in Figure 4 and 8:16-
`
`57; 11:1-21.” ʼ970 PICs at A-17.
`
`The cited sections describe that the software “takes control of the recipient’s
`
`cell phone,” until the user “selects a response” and the recipient device “transmits
`
`the response” to the sender device, at which point the software “releases control”
`
`of the phone and “clears the display or stops repeating the voice message.” ’970
`
`patent at Fig. 4; Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 206-207.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1[g]: means for receiving and displaying (automatic
`acknowledgement)
`The function for this element is “receiving and displaying a listing of which
`
`recipient PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged the forced message
`
`alert and which recipient PDA/cell phones have not automatically acknowledged
`
`the forced message alert,” and the claims should be construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure, which is the “PDA/cell phone hardware including touch
`
`screen 16, and wireless transmitter or cellular modem. ’970 patent at 4:12-46” or
`
`“in the alternative, . . . [if] this implementation is software-implemented, the
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`structure for such display software is set forth in the algorithms in Figures 2, 3A,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`3B, 6:38-7:4; 7:17-8:15.” ’970 PICs at A-18-19.
`
`The cited sections describe that the sending device “monitors for and
`
`receives electronic transmissions with acknowledgments of receipt” and “provides
`
`an indication of which of the PC or PDA/cell phone that the forced message alert
`
`was sent to have acknowledged receipt and which of the PC or PDA/cell phone
`
`that the forced message alert was sent to have not acknowledged receipt on its
`
`display.” ’970 patent at 7:64-8:6; Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 210-211.
`
`5.
`Claim 1[h]: means for periodically resending
`The function for this element is “periodically resending said forced message
`
`alert to said recipient PDA/cell phones that have not automatically acknowledged
`
`the forced message alert,” and the claims should be construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure, which is the “PDA/cell phone hardware including a
`
`wireless transmitter or cellular modem. ’970 patent at 4:12-46.” ʼ970 PICs at A-19-
`
`20; see also ’970 patent at 8:6-8 (after tracking and displaying the devices that
`
`have not acknowledged receipt, explaining that “[t]he sender PC or PDA/cell
`
`phone will then periodically resend the forced message alert to the PC or PDA/cell
`
`phone that have not acknowledged receipt.”)
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1[i]: means for receiving and displaying (manual
`response)
`The function for this element is “receiving and displaying a listing of which
`
`recipient PDA/cell phones have transmitted a manual response to said forced
`
`message alert and details the response from each recipient PDA/cell phone that
`
`responded,” and the claims should be construed to cover the corresponding
`
`structure, which is the “PDA/cell phone hardware including touch screen 16, and
`
`wireless transmitter or cellular modem. ’970 patent at 4:12-46” or “in the
`
`alternative, . . . [if] this implementation is software-implemented, the structure for
`
`such display software is set forth in the algorithms in Figures 2, 3A, 3B, 6:38-7:4;
`
`7:17-8:15.” ʼ970 PICs at A-20-21.
`
`The cited sections describe that the sending device “also monitors for and
`
`receives electronic transmissions with manual responses to the forced message
`
`alert” from the recipients and “displays an indication of the response from each
`
`recipient.” ’970 patent at 8:9-15; Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 219-220.
`
`7.
`
` Claim 2[a]: means for transmitting the acknowledgment of
`receipt
`The function for this element is “transmitting the acknowledgment of receipt
`
`to said sender PDA/cell phone immediately upon receiving a forced message alert
`
`from the sender PDA/cell phone,” and the claims should be construed to cover the
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`corresponding structure, which is the “[a]lgorithm set forth in Figure 4 and 8:16-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,213,970
`
`57; 11:1-21.” ʼ970 PICs at A-22.
`
`The cited material describes that “in response to receipt of the forced alert
`
`message, the recipient phone software prepares and sends an automatic
`
`acknowledgement of the receipt to the sender cell phone.” ’970 patent at Fig. 4;
`
`Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 227-228.
`
`8.
` Claim 2[b]: means for controlling
`The function for this element is