`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 8,213,970
`Filing Date: November 26, 2008
`Issue Date: July 3, 2012
`
`Inventor: Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr.
`Title: METHOD OF UTILIZING FORCED ALERTS FOR INTERACTIVE
`REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01079
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT
`STATEMENT OF HOW THE CLAIMS SHOULD BE
`CONSTRUED ................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the means-plus-function
`terms conflict with positions it has taken in the District Court
`Litigation and Petitioner has failed to meet its burden under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................... 4
`
`Petitioner improperly submits a conflicting construction for
`the “forced message alert software application program,”
`“manual response,” and “the repeating voice alert” terms and
`phrases of the Challenged Claims .......................................................19
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s conflicting positions violate 37 C.F.R. § 42.11,
`§ 11.18(b)(2) ........................................................................................20
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE KUBALA
`REFERENCE IS PRIOR ART ......................................................................24
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR THE GROUNDS
`ADVANCED IN THE PETITION, AND THE PETITION
`SHOULD BE DENIED .................................................................................28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Requirements for Showing Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 ....................................................................................................28
`
`Kubala Is Directed to a Completely Different Technological
`Field .....................................................................................................31
`
`C.
`
`No Motivation Exists to Combine Kubala With Hammond ...............32
`
`D. Ground 1 Is Deficient Because Kubala Does Not Disclose a
`“forced message alert software packet” ..............................................34
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Ground 1 Is Deficient Because Kubala Does Not Disclose
`Automatically Acknowledging Receipt of the Forced Message
`Alert .....................................................................................................35
`
`Ground 1 Is Deficient Because Kubala Does Not Disclose
`Clearing the Display Only in Response to Selection of the
`Manual Response ................................................................................39
`
`G. Grounds 2 and 3 Are Deficient Because Hammond Does Not,
`By Itself, Disclose or Suggest Any Single Limitation of the
`Challenged Claims ..............................................................................41
`
`H. Grounds 2 and 3 Are Deficient Because Petitioner Fails to
`Submit Any Motivation to Combine the References to
`Disclose or Suggest “a data transmission means. . .” .........................43
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Grounds 2 and 3 Are Deficient Because Petitioner Does Not
`Identify Which Elements in Hammond, Johnson, and Pepe
`Correspond to the “forced message alert software packet” ................45
`
`Grounds 2 and 3 Are Deficient Because The Combination of
`Hammond, Johnson, and Pepe Does Not Disclose or Suggest
`Clearing the Display Only in Response to Selection of the
`Manual Response ................................................................................47
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................49
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00355 (P.T.A.B., June 26, 2015) ........................................................ 28
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 30
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ............................................................ 18
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 24
`
`In re Edwards,
`568 F.2d 1349 (CCPA 1978) .............................................................................. 25
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`Case Nos. IPR2017-00998 & IPR2017-01002 (P.T.A.B., Sept. 5,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Bodymedia, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2016-00707 (P.T.A.B., Sept. 8, 2016) .................................... 24, 25
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 30
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 30
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Key Pharm. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 23
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 28
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v.
` Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................... 29
`
`N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. v. Immunex Corporation,
`Case No. IPR2017-01129 (P.T.A.B., Oct. 4, 2017) ........................................... 18
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 28
`
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 30
`
`Yniguez v. State of Ariz.,
`939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 23
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 102 ........................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(2) ........................................................................................ 3, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 ................................................................................................. 3, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`US. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)(4) ..................................................................................... 24
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(2)(4) ..................................................................................... 24
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ...................................................................................passim
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(3) ...................................................................................passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 30
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 47
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 47
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 24
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Document
`Appendix 1 to P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Pre-
`Hearing Statement in AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al. – Parties’ Proposed
`Constructions and Supporting Evidence, filed in AGIS Software
`Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
`2:17-cv-000513-JRG-RSP (Dkt. 149-1)
`P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement,
`filed in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device
`USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-000513-JRG-RSP (Dkt. 149)
`Appendix 1 to P.R. 4-3 - Updated Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement in AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al. – Parties’ Proposed
`Constructions and Supporting Evidence, filed in AGIS Software
`Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
`2:17-cv-000513-JRG-RSP (Dkt. 162-1)
`P.R. 4-3 - Updated Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement, filed in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei
`Device USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-000513-JRG-RSP
`(Dkt. 162)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On May 15, 2018, Google LLC (“Petitioner”) submitted a petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Petition” or “Pet.”) to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,213,970 (Ex. 1001, “the ’970 Patent”), challenging claims 1 and 3–9 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”). The Petition identifies the real parties in interest as
`
`“Google LLC; Huawei Device USA Inc.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd.; Huawei
`
`Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.; Huawei Technologies USA Inc.; Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd.; and LG Electronics, Inc.” Pet. at 79. Huawei and LG are
`
`parties to district court cases captioned as AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017)
`
`(Lead Case) and AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corporation, Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) (Lead Case) (hereinafter, the “District
`
`Court Litigation”).
`
`The Petition submits three grounds based on five prior art references:
`
`[1] U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0218232 to Kubala et al. (Exhibit
`
`1005, “Kubala”); [2] U.S. Patent No. 6,854,007 to Hammond (Exhibit 1006,
`
`“Hammond”); [3] U.S. Patent No. 5,325,310 to Johnson et al. (Exhibit 1007,
`
`“Johnson”); [4] U.S. Patent No. 5,742,905 to Pepe et al. (Exhibit 1008, “Pepe”);
`
`and [5] U.S. Publication No. 2003/0128195 to Banerjee et al. (Exhibit 1009,
`
`“Banerjee”). Ground 1 alleges that the Challenged Claims are obvious over
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Kubala and Hammond. Ground 2 alleges that the Challenged Claims are obvious
`
`over Hammond, Johnson, and Pepe. Ground 3 alleges that the Challenged Claims
`
`are obvious over Hammond, Johnson, Pepe, and Banerjee.
`
`However, the Petition fails for at least three reasons: (1) the Petition fails to
`
`properly construe the claims; (2) the Petition fails to show how the references
`
`disclose each and every element set forth in the claims; and (3) the Petition fails to
`
`show whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`combine the references.
`
`First, the Petition is deficient because Petitioner fails to meet its burden
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) to propose claim constructions that the real parties
`
`in interest believe are correct under applicable law. Real parties in interest Huawei
`
`and LG proffered conflicting claim constructions in the co-pending District Court
`
`Litigation, including an identification of numerous claims they contended are
`
`indefinite. Exhibits 2001-2004. Petitioner merely identified constructions
`
`advocated by Patent Owner in the District Court Litigation without taking the
`
`position that these constructions are correct. Indeed, in the District Court
`
`Litigation, real parties in interest Huawei and LG took the position that the
`
`constructions proffered here were not correct, and that certain of the relevant claim
`
`terms are indefinite. For similar reasons, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`identify for the Board how the terms and phrases “forced message alert software
`
`application program,” “manual response,” and “the repeating voice alert” are to be
`
`construed in this proceeding because real parties in interest, through Petitioner,
`
`have advanced different constructions for each of these terms as compared to the
`
`position taken by the real parties in interest in the District Court Litigation.
`
`Despite certifying that the Petition’s “legal contentions [in the Petition] are
`
`warranted by existing law” and that its “factual contentions have evidentiary
`
`support” (37 C.F.R. § 42.11, § 11.18(b)(2)), Petitioner has knowingly advanced
`
`conflicting positions before the District Court and, therefore, the Petition should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`Second, the Petition fails to meet its burden to show how each and every
`
`claim element is met in the prior art. Hammond differs significantly from both
`
`Kubala and the ’970 Patent. Kubala is email-flagging system, which permits
`
`emails to be sent from one computer to any user of “any one of a variety of
`
`commercially available e-mail applications.” Hammond, on the other hand, is
`
`directed to a dispatch server for generating messages, distributing the messages to
`
`recipients, and then tracking the status of the messages at the dispatch server.
`
`Kubala and Hammond are not in same technological field, as Hammond does not
`
`contemplate a sender phone with specialized software which is also present at the
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`reciepient. Petitioner fails to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would modify Kubala’s email client with the features of Hammond’s server (given
`
`that Hammond does not disclose a non-server sending device).
`
`Due to at least these deficiencies, the Petition does not establish “a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one
`
`of the claims challenged in the Petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While Patent Owner
`
`explicitly reserves the right to present additional arguments, the deficiencies of the
`
`Petition noted herein are sufficient for the Board to find that Petitioner has not met
`
`its burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT
`STATEMENT OF HOW THE CLAIMS SHOULD BE
`CONSTRUED
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the means-plus-
`function terms conflict with positions it has taken in the
`District Court Litigation and Petitioner has failed to meet
`its burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Petitioner has failed to meet its burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) to
`
`identify for the Board how each claim term is to be construed. The regulations
`
`provide that a petition for inter partes review must identify:
`
`[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed. Where the
`
`claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f),
`
`the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions
`
`of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts
`
`corresponding to each claimed function;
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner submits constructions for several means-plus-
`
`function limitations, and Petitioner does not identify a construction for any
`
`additional terms (not even BRI). Pet. at 8–12. Meanwhile, in the co-pending
`
`District Court Litigation, Defendants1 have repeatedly maintained contradictory
`
`positions (see, e.g., Exhibits 2001-2004) which, if the Board’s findings are
`
`consistent with previous cases, should prove fatal to the Petition. In particular, in
`
`the District Court Litigation, Defendants Huawei and LG, who are real parties in
`
`interest to this Petition, contend that the very same limitations––for which
`
`Petitioner expressly construes in this proceeding as having corresponding structure
`
`(Pet. at 10–12)—are, instead, indefinite. Exhibit 2001 at 1–20; Exhibit 2003 at 1–
`
`
`
`1 As noted above, Petitioner has identified Huawei and LG as real parties in
`
`interest to this proceeding. Huawei and LG are Defendants in the consolidated
`
`District Court Litigations.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`13. The table below summarizes Petitioner’s positions in the District Court
`
`Litigation:
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`1. “a data transmission means that
`facilitates the transmission of
`electronic files between said
`PDA/cell phones in different
`locations”
`
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: facilitating the transmission of
`electronic files between said PDA/cell
`phones in different locations.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth at ’970 Patent at
`1:39-43; 2:36-43; 4:1-36; Figs. 2, 3A, 3B,
`and 4. ’970 File History, Application
`12/324,122, Claims, 2008-11-26 do not
`provide an algorithm that corresponds to
`the claimed function.
`
`Intrinsic Support
`
`See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 3:22-31, 3:41-43,
`4:33-36, 4:47-49.
`
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn
`declaration of Chris Bartone to explain the
`technology, state of the art at the time of
`the invention, the level of ordinary skill in
`the relevant art, and the meaning of this
`claim element to a person of ordinary skill
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`2. “means for 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, said forced message alert
`software packet containing a list of
`possible required responses”/ “means
`for 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”
`
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including (1) whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim term to have a
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name
`for structure and (2) whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the specification to disclose sufficient
`structure corresponding to the claimed
`function.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Bartone to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s
`expert and witnesses.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on
`positions and evidence relied upon by
`Plaintiff and its experts in the related IPR
`proceedings.
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: 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, said
`forced message alert software packet
`containing a list of possible required
`responses.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth at ’970 Patent at
`Fig 2, 3A, 3B, 7:8-63. ’970 File History,
`Application 12/324,122, Claims, 2008-11-
`26 do not provide an algorithm that
`corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`Intrinsic Support
`
`See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 3:22-31, 3:41-43,
`4:33-36, 4:47-49.
`
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn
`declaration of Chris Bartone to explain the
`technology, state of the art at the time of
`the invention, the level of ordinary skill in
`the relevant art, and the meaning of this
`claim element to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including (1) whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim term to have a
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name
`for structure and (2) whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the specification to disclose sufficient
`structure corresponding to the claimed
`function.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Bartone to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s
`expert and witnesses.
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`3. “[means for. . .] requiring the
`forced message alert software on said
`recipient PDA/cell phone to transmit
`an automatic acknowledgment to the
`sender PDA/cell phone as soon as
`said forced message alert is received
`by the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on
`positions and evidence relied upon by
`Plaintiff and its experts in the related IPR
`proceedings.
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: requiring the forced message
`alert software on said recipient PDA/cell
`phone to transmit an automatic
`acknowledgment to the sender PDA/cell
`phone as soon as said forced message alert
`is received by the recipient PDA/cell
`phone.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth at 970 Patent, Fig.
`4; 2:7-35; 8:16-62. ’970 File History,
`Application 12/324,122, Claims, 2008-11-
`26 do not provide an algorithm that
`corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`Intrinsic Support
`
`See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 3:22-31, 3:41-43,
`4:33-36, 4:47-49.
`
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn
`declaration of Chris Bartone to explain the
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`4. “means for 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”
`
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`technology, state of the art at the time of
`the invention, the level of ordinary skill in
`the relevant art, and the meaning of this
`claim element to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including (1) whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim term to have a
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name
`for structure and (2) whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the specification to disclose sufficient
`structure corresponding to the claimed
`function.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Bartone to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s
`expert and witnesses.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on
`positions and evidence relied upon by
`Plaintiff and its experts in the related IPR
`proceedings.
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: 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.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth at ’970 Patent at
`Figure 4 and 8:16-57;11:1-21. ’970 File
`History, Application 12/324,122, Claims,
`2008-11-26 do not provide an algorithm
`that corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`Intrinsic Support
`
`See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 3:22-31, 3:41-43,
`4:33-36, 4:47-49.
`
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn
`declaration of Chris Bartone to explain the
`technology, state of the art at the time of
`the invention, the level of ordinary skill in
`the relevant art, and the meaning of this
`claim element to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including (1) whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim term to have a
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name
`for structure and (2) whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the specification to disclose sufficient
`structure corresponding to the claimed
`function.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Bartone to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s
`expert and witnesses.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`5. “means for 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”
`
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on
`positions and evidence relied upon by
`Plaintiff and its experts in the related IPR
`proceedings.
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: 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.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth at ’970 Patent at
`Figures 2, 3A, 3B, 6:38-7:4; 7:17-8:15 do
`not provide an algorithm that corresponds
`to the claimed function.
`
`Intrinsic Support
`
`See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 3:22-31, 3:41-43,
`4:33-36, 4:47-49.
`
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn
`declaration of Chris Bartone to explain the
`technology, state of the art at the time of
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`6. “means for periodically resending
`said forced message alert to said
`recipient PDA/cell phones that have
`not automatically acknowledged the
`forced message alert”
`
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`the invention, the level of ordinary skill in
`the relevant art, and the meaning of this
`claim element to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including (1) whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim term to have a
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name
`for structure and (2) whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the specification to disclose sufficient
`structure corresponding to the claimed
`function.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Bartone to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s
`expert and witnesses.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on
`positions and evidence relied upon by
`Plaintiff and its experts in the related IPR
`proceedings.
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: periodically resending said
`forced message alert to said recipient
`PDA/cell phones that have not
`automatically acknowledged the forced
`message alert.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth at ’970 Patent at
`Figures 2, 3A, 3B, 6:38-7:4; 7:17-8:15 do
`not provide an algorithm that corresponds
`to the claimed function.
`
`Intrinsic Support
`
`See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 3:22-31, 3:41-43,
`4:33-36, 4:47-49.
`
`Extrinsic Support
`
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn
`declaration of Chris Bartone to explain the
`technology, state of the art at the time of
`the invention, the level of ordinary skill in
`the relevant art, and the meaning of this
`claim element to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including (1) whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim term to have a
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name
`for structure and (2) whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand
`the specification to disclose sufficient
`structure corresponding to the claimed
`function.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Bartone to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s
`expert and witnesses.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Claim Term (Asserted Claim)
`
`7. “means for 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”
`
`(’970 Claim 1)
`
`Real Parties in Interest’s Constructions
`positions and evidence relied upon by
`Plaintiff and its experts in the related IPR
`proceedings.
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: 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.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding
`structure disclosed. To the extent any
`structure is disclosed, it is a general
`purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`The disclosures set forth a