`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC LLC
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2019-00610
`Patent 9,454,748
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 7, AND 19-22
`
`Patentee’s Demonstrative Exhibits for use
`in conjunction with Oral Argument
`April 28, 2020
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ The ‘748 patent teaches a questionnaire that comprises a
`plurality of device independent tokens (”tokenized
`questionnaire) that can run without modification on multiple
`different devices / operating systems.
`
`EX 1001, col. 6, lines 12-16
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`EX 1001, col. 4, lines 16-19
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ Claims 1, 20 (via claim 19), and 21 (cancelled / on-appeal)
`require transmission and receipt of a “tokenized
`questionnaire”.
`¤ 1(c) tokenizing said questionnaire, thereby producing a plurality
`of device indifferent tokens representing said questionnaire;
`¤ 19 (b) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire from said originating
`computer …
`¤ 21(a)(2) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire,…
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ The tokenized questionnaire is comprised of a plurality of
`device independent tokens, at least some of which must be
`executable
`¤ 1(e) when said remote computing device is at said location,
`executing at least a portion of said plurality of tokens
`representing said questionnaire at within said remote
`computing device to collect a response from a user;
`¤ 20(19 (b)) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire from said originating
`computer … said tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality
`of device independent tokens;
`¤ 21(a)(2) receiving within said handheld computing device a
`transmission of a tokenized questionnaire,… said tokenized
`questionnaire comprising a plurality of device independent
`tokens;
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ The tokenized questionnaire must be able to automatically
`read a GPS receiver integral to a handheld device.
`¤ Claim 20 (19),
`¤ (a) “… wherein said handheld computing device has a GPS
`integral thereto;”
`¤ (d)(d3) “using said GPS to automatically obtain said
`location identifying information in response to said at least
`one question that requests location information;”
`¤ Claim 21
`¤ (a)(1) “… wherein said handheld computing device has a
`GPS integral thereto;”
`¤ (a)(4)(ii)” automatically entering the GPS coordinates into
`said questionnaire;”
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The ‘748 Patent
`
`¤ Claim 7 requires (summary):
`¤ Designing a questionnaire on a first computer for a particular
`location with branching logic and at least one question that
`requests location information (7(a))
`¤ Automatically transferring the questionnaire to a loosely
`networked computer having an integral GPS (receiver) (7(b))
`¤ Executing the questionnaire and automatically obtaining
`location information from the GPS. (7(d))
`¤ Automatically transferring an responses in real time to a central
`computer (7(e))
`¤ Making available on the Internet any responses transferred to
`the central computer (7(f))
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Grounds 1-3
`
`¤ Ground 1 of the petition asserts
`Barbosa renders obvious claims 1 and
`19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 2 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 19-
`22.
`
`¤ Ground 3 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`
`¤ Barbosa:
`
`¤ “The template may operate in combination with
`programs resident in the handheld computer or
`may be accompanied by a computer program
`transmitted from the server (e.g., in the form of a
`JAVA applet).” 12:14-18.
`
`¤ “Computer program code for carrying out
`operations of the present invention can be written
`in an object oriented programming language such
`as Java., Smalltalk or C++.” 12:45-47.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The State of the Art in 2002
`
`¤ “If you need to write a program that …
`manipulate[s] some hardware directly, you
`can write native methods. A native method
`lets you implement a method that can be
`invoked from the Java programming
`language but is written in a "native" language,
`usually C or C++. ... If you use a native
`method, all portability and safety of the code
`are lost. You cannot, for instance, use a native
`method in almost any code you expect to
`download and run from across a network
`connection (an applet, for example )” Ex
`2001, p.6 (p. 63 in the original). emphasis
`added
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The State of the Art in 2002
`
`¤ “Due to strict memory constraints and the
`requirement to support application interaction
`and data sharing within related applications,
`the Mobile Information Device Profile does not
`support the familiar Applet model introduced
`by Java™ 2 Platform, Standard Edition
`(J2SE™). Rather, MIDP introduces a new
`application model that was designed to
`augment the CLDC [Connected, Limited
`Device Configuration] application model and
`to allow multiple Java applications to share
`data and run concurrently on the KVM.” Ex
`2002 at p 43, emphasis added.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`The State of the Art in 2002
`
`¤ Earliest claimed priority date of the ‘748 Patent was
`at least as early as January 1, 2002.
`¤ The available handheld devices in 2002 had very
`limited capabilities (EX 2002, p. 17):
`
`¤ Java for handheld devices was
`was designed to
`accommodate the “lowest
`common denominator” among
`supported devices. EX 2002, p
`22, EX 2006 ¶32.
`¤ Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition
`(J2ME) was supported on
`multiple handheld platforms.
`EX 2002, p. 22, EX 2006 ¶¶31-32
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`
`¤ “The template may operate in combination with
`programs resident in the handheld computer or may
`be accompanied by a computer program
`transmitted from the sever (e.g., in the form of a JAVA
`applet).” EX 1002, 12:14-18, emphasis added.
`
`¤ “You cannot, for instance, use a native method in
`almost any code you expect to download and run
`from across a network connection (an applet, for
`example ).” Ex 2001, p.63, emphasis added.
`
`¤ “[T]he Mobile Information Device Profile does not
`support the familiar Applet model introduced by
`Java™ 2 Platform, Standard Edition (J2SE™). Ex 2002
`at p 43, emphasis added.
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`
`¤ Reply Declaration (EX 1018, emphasis added)
`¤ 11. Thus, rather than being limited solely to the
`disclosures of Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition (J2ME), it
`is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a
`POSITA at the time of Barbosa to apply known
`techniques used by Java (Version 1), Java 2 Standard
`Edition, and Java 2 Enterprise Edition to wireless
`devices once those devices’ then-limited computing
`power improved.
`
`¤ EX 1019 Java Specification Request (JSR-179),
`©2003 (Id, p. 3).
`
`¤ EX 1021 Bluetooth Application Programming with
`Java APIs, ©2004 (Id., p. 5).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa (Ground 1)
`¤ Claims 1, 19 and 21 of the ‘748 Patent are not
`obvious in view of Barbosa at least because
`Barbosa does not teach a tokenized questionnaire
`that can read a GPS unit and using device
`independent tokens.
`
`¤ Claims 20 and 22 depend from independent
`claims that are not obvious in view of Barbosa, so
`they are similarly not obvious.
`
`¤ Ground 1 must be rejected with respect to claims
`1, and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Device Independent Tokens
`
`¤ “The instant limitation [device independent tokens]
`does not require that a program obtain
`information from a GPS receiver in a device
`independent manner. Instead, it requires that the
`tokens in the questionnaire be device
`independent.” Decision Instituting IPR, p. 27.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Device Independent Tokens
`
`¤ “As a part of the inventive system each remote
`device, preferably a handheld computer, is
`provided with an operating instruction system
`("OIS") which overlays its native operating system.
`Once equipped with the OIS, a remote device can
`be programmed according to methods described
`hereinafter. Any program developed under the
`inventive system will run on any handheld
`computer equipped with the OIS and files on one
`such handheld will transfer freely to any other
`handheld or any computer connected to the
`inventive system.” EX 1001, 7:48-59.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Ground 1 of the petition asserts
`Barbosa renders obvious claims 1 and
`19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 2 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 19-
`22.
`
`¤ Ground 3 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Bandera teaches systems and methods for
`“selecting an advertising object to be displayed
`within a Web page requested by a user based on
`the geographic location of the user and/or on the
`time of day.” EX 1004, Abstract.
`
`¤ Bandera utilizes the Java Virtual Machine of Sun
`Microsystems (JVM) Id. 5:50-54 and an “applet
`configured to communicate with a GPS”. Id., 8:63-
`66.
`
`¤ Bandera’s program is not device independent. EX
`2006, ¶91.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Claims 1, 19 and 21 all require a tokenized
`questionnaire comprising a plurality of device
`independent tokens.
`
`¤ Neither Barbosa nor Bandera teach a tokenized
`questionnaire that accesses a GPS module in a
`device independent manner.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera (Ground 2)
`
`¤ Claims 1, and 19 and 21 are not
`obvious over Barbosa in view of
`Bandera at least because neither
`Barbosa nor Bandera teach a
`tokenized questionnaire with device
`independent tokens.
`
`¤ Claims 20 and 22 depend
`independent claims that are not
`obvious and are similarly
`nonobvious.
`
`¤ Ground 2 must be rejected with
`respect to claims 1 and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ Ground 1 of the petition asserts
`Barbosa renders obvious claims 1 and
`19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 2 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 19-
`22.
`
`¤ Ground 3 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ Falls teaches “A method and apparatus are
`disclosed for synchronizing transactions in a
`disconnectable network.” EX 1017, Abstract.
`
`¤ Falls is relied upon for its teaching of
`synchronization in a disconnectable network.
`
`¤ Barbosa is alleged to teach claim steps 7(b) and
`7(e), “automatically transferring”.
`
`¤ Barbosa is alleged to teach step 7(f), i.e., “making
`available via the Internet any responses transferred
`to said central computer in step (e)”.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ “Automatic transfer to” (the user)
`
`¤ “The assessor may start an inventory program 1101,
`identify a service schedule 1102, and synchronize
`the schedule 1103 with an inventory manager. The
`inventory manager assesses the schedule
`requirements and provides the technician with an
`inventory availability status 1104. The technician
`may coordinate inventory needs with the
`company automatically using this method so that
`no more inventory than is needed is taken to the
`field.” Barbosa 11:33-40.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ “A worker’s handheld device (or device assigned
`to the worker for the shift) may be synchronized
`901 with a server to receive an updated template
`containing tasks for the worker at the beginning of
`of every work shift.” Barbosa 10:32-42.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ “Making available via the Internet any responses
`transferred…”
`
`¤ In its Reply (Paper 19, pp. 15-17), Petitioner cites
`numerous passages in Barbosa that mention use of
`the Internet.
`
`¤ None of the quotations ever actually meet the
`limitation of claim step 7(f), i.e., “making available
`via the Internet any responses so collected in real
`time to a central computer;”
`
`¤ Petitioner still lacks support for this limitation.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls (Ground 3)
`
`¤ So based on the foregoing,
`claim 7 of the ‘748 Patent is not
`obvious over Barbosa in view
`of Bandera at least because
`Barbosa does not disclose
`“automatic transfer” nor does
`he disclose “making available
`on the Internet”.
`
`¤ Ground 3 must be rejected
`with respect to claim 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Grounds 4-6
`
`¤ Ground 4 of the petition asserts
`Hancock in view of a POSITA’s
`knowledge renders obvious claims 1,
`2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 5 asserts Hancock in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 2,
`5, and 19-22).
`
`¤ Ground 6 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7
`(Ground 6).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a system and method of providing
`users with information that is specific to the user’s
`geographic location. EX 1003, 2:64-67.
`
`¤ No mention of Java or device independence.
`
`¤ Petitioner:
`¤ “However, Hancock is silent regarding a programming
`language used to create the Go2 Application.”
`Petition, p. 51.
`¤ … [A] POSITA would have understood that the Java
`programming language is a programming language
`that provides device independency. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 132-33,
`195. As such, it would have been an obvious design
`choice to a POSITA that the Go2 Application could
`have been implemented using Java.” Id.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ The only programming language disclosed in
`Hancock is C++. EX 1003, col. 20, lines 39-44.
`
`¤ C++ is a language that is device and operating
`system dependent. EX 2006, ¶82.
`
`¤ Accord: EX 2001, p. 6.
`¤ “A native method lets you implement a method that
`can be invoked from the Java programming
`language but is written in a "native" language, usually
`C or C++. If you use a native method, all portability
`and safety of the code are lost.”
`
`¤ C++ is object oriented but not device
`independent.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ “Ex. 1003, Fig. 17 (annotated).
`Accordingly, Hancock’s
`questionnaire is “tokenized” when
`applying the proper construction of
`the term “token,” as explained in VI.
`B.ii.”. Petition p. 49, emphasis in
`original.
`
`¤ “Petitioners, however, do not assert
`that Hancock discloses device
`independent tokens – Petitioners
`assert only that Hancock renders
`obvious the use of device
`independent tokens.” Petitioner’s
`Reply at p. 17.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 all require the creation of a
`tokenized questionnaire comprised of device
`independent tokens which can access a GPS
`device.
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a system coded in the C++
`language which would produce a device
`dependent questionnaire.
`
`¤ Hancock is familiar with web browsers and created
`a web browser component to use along with his
`Go2 Application in C++.
`
`¤ “The Go2 Application program 1500 is provided
`with a web browser component 1502.” 26:30-31
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock (Ground 4)
`
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 are not obvious in
`view of Hancock at least because
`Hancock does not teach or suggest a
`tokenized questionnaire.
`
`¤ Claims 2, 5, 20, and 22 depend from
`nonobvious claims so they must also be
`nonobvious with respect to Hancock.
`
`¤ Ground 4 must be rejected with respect
`to claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Ground 4 of the petition asserts
`Hancock in view of a POSITA’s
`knowledge renders obvious claims 1,
`2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 5 asserts Hancock in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 2,
`5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 6 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7
`(Ground 6).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Petitioner: “Further, while Hancock is silent as to
`the programming language used to implement its
`Go2 Application, Bandera discloses that the Java
`programming language may be used to provide
`programs on mobile devices and that Java is
`machine and operating-system independent.”
`Petition at 69. See also, Ex 1005 at ¶232.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 all require the creation of a
`tokenized questionnaire comprised of device
`independent tokens which can access a GPS
`device.
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a system coded in the C++
`language which would produce a device
`dependent questionnaire.
`
`¤ Hancock is familiar with web browsers and created
`a web browser component to use along with his
`Go2 Application in C++.
`
`¤ No teaching or suggestion to convert Go2 to Java
`or reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Bandera
`(Ground 5)
`¤ Claims 1, 19, and 21 are not obvious
`in view of Hancock at least because
`Hancock does not teach or suggest a
`tokenized questionnaire.
`
`¤ Claims 2, 5, 20, and 22 depend from
`nonobvious claims so they must also
`be nonobvious with respect to
`Hancock.
`
`¤ Ground 5 must be rejected with
`respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ Ground 4 of the petition asserts
`Hancock in view of a POSITA’s
`knowledge renders obvious claims 1,
`2, 5, and 19-22.
`
`¤ Ground 5 asserts Hancock in view of
`Bandera renders obvious claims 1, 2,
`5, and 19-22).
`
`¤ Ground 6 asserts Barbosa in view of
`Falls renders obvious obvious claim 7
`(Ground 6).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ Claim 7 limitations at issue:
`
`¤ Claim 7(b): automatically transferring the
`questionnaire to the loosely networked computer
`having a GPS integral thereto.
`
`¤ Claim 7(e): automatically transferring via the loose
`network any responses collected in real time to a
`central computer.
`
`¤ Claim 7(f): making available via the Internet any
`responses transferred in step 7(e).
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ “Automatic transfer to” (7(b))
`
`¤ Fig. 18 indicates that the Go2 program and its
`graphic interface / questionnaire are only
`transferred to the user’s device if the offer to
`download it is accepted. Fig. 18, boxes 1806 and
`1808. EX 2006, ¶94.
`
`¤ Hancock does not teach automatic transfer of the
`Go2 questionnaire to a loosely networked
`computer having a GPS integral thereto.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ “Automatic transfer from”
`
`¤ Hancock teaches a device dependent program
`that allows a user to make location-based queries
`of a central server. EX 2006, ¶100.
`
`¤ “For example, the user may wish to formulate a
`database query for finding all fast-food restaurants
`within a five-mile radius”. EX 1017, 27:38-43.
`
`¤ A user-based query is not an automatic transfer of
`a response from the user device, but a user
`initiated transfer.
`
`¤ Hancock does not teach “automatic transfer
`from”
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ “Making available via the Internet” (7(f))
`
`¤ Hancock teaches transferring queries from the user
`to a central server.
`
`¤ Hancock transmission receipt of the database
`search back to the user from the central server.
`
`¤ Hancock teaches transmission to/from a user but
`does not teach making the user information
`available via the Internet.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Hancock in view of Falls (Ground 6)
`
`¤ Claim 7 is not rendered obvious by
`Hancock in view of Falls at least
`because Hancock does not teach or
`suggest claim steps 7(b), 7(e), and
`7(f).
`
`¤ Ground 6 must be rejected with
`respect to claims 7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Administrative Patent Judges are
`Principal Officers of the United States
`¤ Patent Owner objects to the use of inter partes review because
`it is carried out by a final order issued by Administrative Patent
`Judges who have not been nominated by the President and
`confirmed by the Senate.
`¤ Members of the Board qualify as Officers of the United States.
`And they are not merely "inferior Officers," but "principal
`Officer[s]" under the Appointments Clause.
`¤ Accordingly, the members of the Board are Principal Officers,
`and to constitutionally exercise such authority they must be
`appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`2019)
`¤ Patent Owner reasserts this defense which was originally
`presented in its Response to preserve this argument for appeal.
`43
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`THE END
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 9,454,748 / IPR 2019-00610
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`