`IPR2022-00202 & IPR2022-00291
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,142,810
`&
`U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`1
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF GROUND I – DIACAKIS (EXHIBIT 1007)
`
` Diacakis does not render obvious:
`[1.0] – Network-Based Portal (“NBP”)
`[1.3], [11.5], and [19.3] – “all” “communications” “use one identifier”
`[1.4], [11.6], and [19.4] – “indicating the selected option of communication for the message”
`[1.6], [11.8]. and [19.6] – “enabling, via a network-based portal, the message to be received by the second user”
`[1.8], [11.9], and [19.8] – “to allow the second user to receive messages via the network-based portal”
`[1.9], [11.10], and [19.9] – “even when the message is received by the second user … the contact information
`associated with the second user is not provided ….”
`[3], [12], and [13] – group messaging
`[7] and [16] – depends on a period of time
`[10] and [18] – voice mail
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`2
`
`
`
`DIACAKIS (EXHIBIT 1007)
`
` Diacakis teaches a “presence and availability management system.”
`
` Diacakis defines “presence” as “the ability of an individual to access a particular communications network”
`and “availability” as “the willingness of an individual who is present in one or more communications
`networks to be reached by one or more persons.”
`
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0003], [0026], [0027]
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 12, ¶34.
`
` Diacakis teaches that an individual may create profiles, such as the office profile in Fig. 2, to instruct the P&A
`system how to distribute his/her contact information.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`3
`
`
`
`DIACAKIS (EXHIBIT 1007)
`
` A profile specifies what subset of the individual’s
`contact information subscribers at a given access level
`receive.
`
` For example, an individual may have an office
`profile as indicated in FIG. 2.
`
` A subscriber with an access level of “Important”
`would receive the items marked “Yes” in the
`“Important” column, with the preference indicated
`(where appropriate), thereby making it very easy for
`“important” subscribers to communicate with the
`individual.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`4
`
`
`
`DIACAKIS (EXHIBIT 1007)
`
` Persons in the “Normal” access level would
`receive less contact information than persons in the
`“Important” access level, and persons in the
`“Restricted” access level would receive even less
`contact information.
`
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0032](emphasis added)
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 13, ¶36.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`5
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] A “Portal” Is A “Gateway” And
`A “Gateway” Is A “Server”
` A “portal” is a “gateway” for a website that is a site for users
`when they connect to the Web.
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Col. 4, line 13 and 53-
`54, Col. 6, lines 66-67, and Col. 7, line 3.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 21-22, ¶¶ 49-
`50.
`
` The specification also defines a “gateway” as a “networked
`
`server”:
`The remote server computer can be a networked
`server coupled to the network 108. One example of a
`networked server is a gateway computer for a
`wireless electronic device, such as a mobile
`telephone.
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Col. 16, lines 7-10.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 21-22, ¶50.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`6
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] A NBP Is Not A “User Interface” – Petitioner Is Wrong
`► Petitioner contends that the “user interface 112” of “Diacakis’ client terminal 22” is a NBP:
`
`● Petition at 33-34.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 19-20, ¶46.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`7
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] A NBP Is Not A “User Interface”
` With respect to “client terminal 22,” Diacakis repeatedly teaches that the client terminal is just that, a client terminal
`at the client side of a network; it is not a server at the server side of a network.
`● Exhibit 1007 at [0024], [0030], [0034], [0035], and [0056] (Diacakis).
` Diacakis’s “client terminal” is a “communication device”:
`The client terminal 22 is illustrated as a personal computer in FIG. 1, although according to other
`embodiments the client terminal may be another type of communication device such as, for example, a
`wireless telephone (such as a WAP (Wireless Application Protocol)-enabled phone) or a wireless or
`connected personal digital assistant (PDA).
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0024].
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 20, ¶47.
` With respect to the “user interface 112,” Diacakis teaches that the “user interface 112” is provided by the client
`device and that it “may include, for example, a GUI (Graphical User Interface) or a CUI (Character-based User
`Interface).”
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0063].
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 20-21, ¶48.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`8
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] A NBP Is Not A “User Interface”
` A UI does not provide worldwide access.
`
` A portal can be an ISP.
`
`●Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Claim 1 at Col 6, lines 22-23.
`
` A user interface is not the claimed NBP.
`
`☼ Petitioner fails to address PO’s specification cites.
`
`☼☼ Petitioner fails to rebut Dr. Rouskas’s testimony.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`9
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] A Preferred Embodiment Is Not
`Excluded
`
` The embodiment(s) (in Figs. 7-12) are not embodiment(s)
`concerning use of a NBP.
` The specification states:
`
`Fig. 7 is a flow diagram of a personal call response
`process 200 according to one embodiment of the
`invention. The personal call response process 200 is
`performed by an electronic device, such as a mobile
`communication device (e.g., mobile telephone).
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Col. 9, lines 11-15.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 27, ¶61.
` Similar language is used in describing Figures 8-11.
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Figures 8-11.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 27, ¶61.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`10
`
`
`
`[[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] A Preferred Embodiment Is Not
`Excluded
`The method of claim 1 concerns “managing
`electronic communications using at least a
`network-based portal” and requires “enabling,
`via the network-based portal, the message to
`be received by the second user”; whereas the
`embodiments of Figs. 7-11 are methods
`performed by the second user’s device upon
`receiving a message.
` Instead, Figures 7-11 concern how a recipient
`using a client device can respond to an incoming
`call or message.
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Figures 7-11.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 27-28, ¶62.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`11
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply - first
`► The Reply “first” argues that there is nothing to limit the
`claimed portal to a server or a website.
`● Reply at 7.
` The POR shows that in the ʼ810 patent a “portal” and a
`“gateway” are used synonymously and a “gateway” is a
`“networked server”.
`● POR at 11.
` Petitioner’s Reply ignores the specification and is not
`supported by any rebuttal expert testimony.
` Petitioner’s unsupported argument is contradicted by
`Petitioner’s Reply Exhibit 1041, which states “[a] mobile portal
`is an Internet gateway that enables mobile devices to connect
`remotely ... typically via a Web browser interface.”
` Thus, Exhibit 1041 defines a “portal” as an Internet “gateway”
`and differentiates it from a web browser interface, which is used
`to connect a device to the portal.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`12
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply - first
`☼ Petitioner’s Reply Exhibit 1041 shows a
`“portal” that is a server, not a user interface:
` User RAY types the URL into his browser to connect to
`the server of the portal site; the server collects information
`from various sources at the site to present to user RAY via
`the web browser interface.
`● Exhibit 1043 at 80:7-81:22.
` “Portals represent an early paradigm shift for enterprises
`online, which was to build websites that were customer-
`centric, rather than business-centric. Ideally, a portal
`enables an enterprise to design sites and navigations that
`are based on the user’s needs, rather than an
`organizational structure that only makes sense internally.”
`● Exhibit 1041 at 3 (emphasis added).
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`13
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply - first
` That a definition includes the term “interface” does not mean
`a “portal” is an interface.
` The term “interface” is used to indicate how a user accesses
`the portal (i.e., via a web browser interface), not what a portal
`is.
` A web browser (as in Petitioner’s definition) is an interface
`found on client devices (computers, laptops, phones, etc.)
`whether those devices access a portal or not.
` Regarding “hosting” a web page, the Petitioner’s exhibit
`expressly states that devices access the portal by
`“connect[ing] remotely ... typically via a Web browser
`interface.”
`● Exhibit 1041.
` Since the devices use a “Web browser interface” they must
`necessarily connect to a website hosted at the portal.
`● Exhibit 1041.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`14
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply - second
`► Second, the Reply argues that PO incorrectly argues the ʼ810 Patent defines “portal” as a “gateway” and that
`a gateway is always a “networked server.”
`
`● Reply at 7-8.
`
` As shown above, however, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1041 also defines “portal” as a “gateway”.
`
` Dr. Rouskas’s testimony that – to a POSITA the word “or” in the specification means that “portal” and
`“gateway” are used synonymously – is unrebutted.
`● POR at 11.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 90:4-9, 91:10-15.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`15
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply - third
`► Third, the Reply argues that it is a “distinction without a difference” that the NBP and client devices have different
`functionalities because the NBP allows worldwide access to the user, whereas a client communication device is associated
`with a user.
`● Reply at 8-9.
`► Petitioner claims that “Diacakis’s client terminal connects a user to a network via the NBP.”
` This statement is wrong because (1) Diacakis only describes messages related to the management of P&A information, not
`direct communication between users, and (2) interface 112 (i.e., the Petitioner’s claimed NBP) cannot be used to send user
`messages.
`
`● Exhibit 1042 at 134:3-135:4 and 417:17-21.
` Petitioner conflates messages related to management of P&A information with direct messages between users.
` Diacakis’s P&A system operates in a publisher-subscriber model.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 141:5-142:12.
` When the profile of an individual changes, these changes are sent to the P&A server; the server then forwards the updated
`contact information to the subscribers.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 141:5-142:12.
` However, the Diacakis system cannot be used by one user to call or send communication messages directly to another user.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 141:5-142:12.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`16
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply - third
` Interface 112 cannot be used to send any user
`messages and may only receive contact information
`from the P&A server – it does not provide “worldwide
`access to the user.”
`
`● Exhibit 1042 at 415:23-416:6 and 417:17-21.
`
` To communicate with other users (i.e., make or
`receive calls, emails, or IMs), a user must interact
`with specific application interfaces (i.e., the Phone,
`Email, or IM interface, respectively) that allow for the
`sending or receipt of messages.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`17
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply – fourth
`► Fourth, the Reply argues that PO made a strawman argument “that only the sender’s device contains the NBP”.
`● Reply at 9.
` Petitioner’s argument contains several incorrect statements.
` First, it states “[a]s the Petition explained, Diacakis’s users provide their contact information to a P&A server” which
`“is different from the NBP.”
` The Diacakis P&A system operates in a publisher-subscriber model.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 140:10-141:3.
` When the profile of an individual changes, these changes are sent to the P&A server; the server then forwards the
`updated contact information to the users, i.e., to interface 112, for display the contact information is sent to the
`alleged NBP, interface 112, for display.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 202:1-4.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`18
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply – fourth
` Second, the Reply incorrectly states “… the NBP,
`which is the interface that allows users to connect to
`the P&A server.”
`
`● Reply at 9.
`
` Interface 112 may only receive messages from the
`P&A server – users cannot use it to send messages to
`other users via the P&A server.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`19
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply – fourth
` Third, every device in Diacakis’s system including interface 112 is only for a user to receive contact
`information of individuals they wish to contact.
`● Exhibit 1042 at 419:6-13.
` A device in Diacakis’s system will also have an interface (not shown in Diacakis) that allows the user to
`connect to the P&A server to provide their contact information to the server and configure their profile and
`access groups.
` But that interface is separate from interface 112.
` The Diacakis system must implement different interfaces, one for configuring the contact information,
`profiles, and access groups, and one for receiving contact information: the former is a configuration function
`while the latter is a digital phonebook (i.e., a Contacts app).
`● Exhibit 1007 at Fig. 9, [0031], [0036], and [0063]-[0064].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`20
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply – fourth
` Finally, Petitioner is wrong in claiming that “PO
`misreads element 1.8.”
`
`● Reply at 9.
`
` The Reply ignores all the examples PO provided in
`the POR of Diacakis teachings that the contact
`information is displayed to the user, including Figs. 2,
`3, and 8.
`
`● POR at 6-7 and 27-30.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`21
`
`
`
`[1.0] NETWORK-BASED PORTAL – ALL CLAIMS
`
`[1.0] Petitioner’s Reply – fifth
`► Fifth, regarding whether PO’s construction excludes a
`preferred embodiment (Fig. 7-12), the Reply argues that
`“because the patent’s figures are embodiments of the patent, they
`must include an NBP.”
`● Reply at 14.
` Petitioner completely fails to address the POR’s evidence
`explaining why Figs. 7-12 are not directed to the use of a NBP.
` Petitioner’s position that every issued claim must encompass
`every figure/embodiment of a patent is wrong as a matter of law.
` The fact is that PO’s evidence submitted after the Institution
`Decision shows that a POSITA would understand that the
`embodiments of Figs. 7-12 are not directed to NBP operations
`but are instead directed to client-side operations at a client
`device; and this post-institution evidence stands unrebutted.
`● POR at 16-17.
`☼ Ground I of the Petition should be denied due to
`Petitioner’s failure to address these points.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`22
`
`
`
`[1.3] “ALL” “COMMUNICATIONS” “USE ONE
`IDENTIFIER” IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`[1.3] requires “all of the communication
`options use one identifier … to receive
`messages ….”
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Claim 1 (emphasis added)
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 29, ¶68.
`
` Diacakis, however, does not teach a system that
`actually allows a user to make a communication.
`Moreover, a POSITA would understand that
`“Jonathan” may not be used “to receive [any]
`messages”, let alone “all of the communications”.
`
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 30, ¶69.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`23
`
`
`
`[1.3] “ALL” “COMMUNICATIONS” “USE ONE
`IDENTIFIER” IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`
` The Diacakis indicator “Jonathan” is not for, and
`cannot be used to, receive messages.
`
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 30, ¶70.
`
` For example, in Fig 8 the indicator “Jonathan”
`indicates Jonathan’s different modes of
`communication and for which mode(s) Jonathan is
`available:
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`24
`
`
`
`[1.3] “ALL” “COMMUNICATIONS” “USE ONE
`IDENTIFIER” IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`
` If a user selects “Jonathan” no communication transpires.
`Instead, to communicate, the user must use either the IM or the
`telephone number provided on the left-hand side of Fig. 8 to
`contact Jonathan outside of Diacakis’s P&A system.
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8 and [0062].
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 30-31, ¶70.
` Diacakis also teaches that the names appearing in Fig. 8 are
`simply the names of the subscriber’s contacts:
`the subscriber may navigate the list of names in the
`right hand window (“Contacts Program”) to access
`the P&A information regarding the highlighted
`individual in the left hand window (“Contact
`Properties”).
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0056].
`For example, with reference to FIG. 8, the indicator
`for Jonathan identifies Jonathan by name and
`indicates that Jonathan is available to the subscriber
`to receive data content by telephone and instant
`messaging.
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0064].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`25
`
`
`
`[1.3] “ALL” “COMMUNICATIONS” “USE ONE
`IDENTIFIER” IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`
` Diacakis’s use of first names in the Contacts
`Program indicates that these are not unique identifiers.
`
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 17-18, ¶43.
`
` Petitioner fails to address PO’s argument.
`
` Petitioner fails to rebut Dr. Rouskas’s testimony.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`26
`
`
`
`[1.3] “ALL” “COMMUNICATIONS” “USE ONE
`IDENTIFIER” IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`[1.3] Petitioner’s Reply
` The POR proves that the Diacakis indicator is not
`for, and is not used to, receive messages.
`● POR at 20-21.
` Petitioner’s Reply argument is not supported by
`any evidence from the perspective of a POSITA.
`● Reply at 16.
` Diacakis expressly teaches that “the single
`summary indicator may be a summary of the
`individual’s availability” and hence, as the POR
`states, the “indicator is not for, and cannot be used to,
`receive messages.”
`● Exhibit 1007 at [0059].
`● POR at 20.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`27
`
`
`
`[1.3] “ALL” “COMMUNICATIONS” “USE ONE
`IDENTIFIER” IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`[1.3] Petitioner’s Reply
` According to Diacakis “the single summary indicator
`contain[s] several different icons or states, .... the icons may
`indicate types of data the individual is available to receive such
`as, for example, text files audio files, ….”
` When a user selects indicator “Jonathan” in Fig. 8 of Diacakis,
`the availability information of contact “Jonathan” is shown in the
`left-hand side of Fig. 8 and no communication transpires.
`● Exhibit 1007 at [0059].
`● POR at 21.
` Petitioner’s Reply does not contest PO’s arguments that (1) a
`POSITA would understand that “Jonathan” may not be used to
`“receive [any] messages”, let alone “all of the communications”,
`or (2) if a user selects “Jonathan” no communication transpires.
`● POR at 20-21.
`☼ Ground I of the Petition(s) should be denied due to
`Petitioner’s failure to address these points.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`28
`
`
`
`[1.4] IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`
`[1.4] requires “receiving an indication regarding one of the plurality of communication options, via the network-
`based portal, from an electronic device associated with the first user, the indication indicating the selected
`option of communication for the message ….”
`● Exhibit 1001, ʼ810 Patent at Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 31, ¶72.
` There is no teaching whatsoever in Diacakis about the server gaining knowledge of a selected mode of
`communication.
` It wouldn’t make sense to a POSITA to do so either because Diacakis’s P&A system just presents the
`communication options, it does not make a connection, or care about what communication option ultimately
`is selected.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 32, ¶74.
` There simply is no component related to establishing a communication.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 32, ¶74.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`29
`
`
`
`[1.4] IS NOT OBVIATED BY DIACAKIS
`
`[1.4] Petitioner’s Reply
` The POR shows that Diacakis does not teach or suggest [1.4] to a POSITA because (1) there is no teaching
`about its server 12 gaining knowledge of a selected mode of communication, and (2) there is no component in
`the P&A server 12 related to establishing user-to-user communication.
`
`☼ As Petitioner’s Reply fails to address these aspects of [1.4], Ground I of the Petition should be denied.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`30
`
`
`
`[1.6] “ENABLING, VIA A NETWORK-BASED PORTAL, THE
`MESSAGE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE SECOND USER ….”
`
` Diacakis teaches a P&A system that provides
`information to subscribers to “refer to a single
`indicator and use that information to initiate point-to-
`point contact.”
`●Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0062].
` But Diacakis’s P&A system does not support
`messages being sent or received between a first and
`second user, let alone enabling a message to be
`received by the second user, using the selected option
`of communication.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 33, ¶78.
`► Citing [0062], Petitioner argues that Diacakis
`provides a UI to allow subscribers to contact
`individuals.
`● Petition at 43-45.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`31
`
`
`
`[1.6] “ENABLING, VIA A NETWORK-BASED PORTAL, THE
`MESSAGE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE SECOND USER ….”
`
` A POSITA would understand that when Diacakis says “use that information to initiate point-to-point contact”, Diacakis means that
`the user makes a “point-to-point” communication outside of Diacakis’s P&A system by using, for example, a phone to call or IM.
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8.
` A POSITA would understand that the “point-to-point” phone call or IM does not transpire in, or use, Diacakis’s P&A system.
`Rather, it is a “normal” direct phone call or IM.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 33-34, ¶79.
`
` Moreover, as previously determined by the Board, Diacakis does not provide messages:
`In short, based on the evidence of record, Petitioner shows only that the server in Diacakis provides the appropriate
`address or phone number and the presence and availability information regarding the individual to the subscriber who
`wishes to contact an individual, not that the server receives the “message” the subscriber is trying to convey to the
`individual.
`● Exhibit 2006, Decision Denying Institution, IPR2022-00297 at 26 (PTAB May 26, 2022) (emphasis added).
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 34, ¶80.
` Thus, [1.6] is not rendered obvious to a POSITA by Diacakis.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 34, ¶81.
` Independent claims 11 [11.8] and 19 [19.6] are not rendered obvious for the same reasons. Id.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`32
`
`
`
`[1.6] “ENABLING, VIA A NETWORK-BASED PORTAL, THE
`MESSAGE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE SECOND USER ….”
`
`[1.6] Petitioner’s Reply
` The POR shows that Diacakis does not teach or suggest [1.6] to a POSITA because (1) the phone call or IM
`does not transpire in, or use, the Diacakis P&A system, and (2) as previously determined by the Board, Diacakis
`does not provide user messages.
`
`● POR at 24-25.
`
`☼ As Petitioner’s Reply fails to address these aspects of [1.6], Ground I of the Petition should be denied.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`33
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Diacakis is an improved P&A system that does not include a communication system for users to interact, i.e.,
`Diacakis does not provide or support messages communicated from one user to another, as claim 1 of the ʼ810
`patent requires.
`
` For example, Diacakis does not show anyone making a call or receiving a call via the P&A system.
`● Exhibit 2006, Decision Denying Institution, IPR2022-00297 at 26 (PTAB May 26, 2022) (emphasis added).
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 18-19, ¶¶ 44-45.
`
`► Petitioner erroneously argues that Diacakis provides a UI to allow subscribers to contact individuals.
`
`● Petition at 43-45.
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 33, ¶79.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`34
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` A POSITA would understand that when Diacakis says “use that information to initiate point-to-point contact”,
`Diacakis means that the user makes a “point-to-point” communication outside of Diacakis’s P&A system by
`using, for example, a phone to call or IM.
`
`● Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8.
`
` A POSITA would understand that the “point-to-point” phone call or IM does not transpire in, or use,
`Diacakis’s P&A system. Rather, it is a “normal” direct phone call or IM.
`
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 33-34, ¶79.
`
` Diacakis’s P&A system does not teach or support actually sending messages between two users.
`
`● Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 34-35, ¶83.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`35
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` The POR proves that Diacakis’s P&A system does not
`teach or support sending messages between users.
`● POR at 25-26.
` Petitioner’s Reply argument is not supported by any
`evidence from the perspective of a POSITA.
`● Reply at 14-17.
` Fig. 8 of Diacakis shows the information displayed by
`interface 112 (the alleged NBP) includes a list of names
`and their contact, presence, and availability information,
`which is what the Diacakis system manages.
`
` Diacakis is a “digital phonebook.”
`● Reply at 16.
`● Exhibit 1007 at [0006]-[0007], [0056], and [0064].
`● Exhibit 1042 at 134:9-135:4, 201:22-202:17.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`36
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` “a system that actually allows a user to make a
`communication” is not shown in Fig. 11.
` Fig. 11 simply shows “relay hosts” that relay (i.e.,
`forward) messages. Exhibit 1007 at [0072]-[0073].
` Message forwarding takes place every time a user,
`e.g., makes a call, and the Diacakis system is not
`involved in the initiation of the call.
` There is nothing in Diacakis, within Figure 11 or
`elsewhere, that teaches, or even implies, that the
`Diacakis P&A system may be used to initiate or
`carry out user-to-user communication.
`
`● Exhibit 1007 at [0072]-[0073] and Fig. 11.
`● Exhibit 1043, 421:18-422:2 and 422:19-423:6.
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`37
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Figure 1 of Diacakis and the accompanying
`discussion clearly show that the P&A server 12
`consists of a presence detection engine, an
`availability management engine, and a profile
`database, and its function is to receive profile
`information from clients and forward P&A
`information to subscribers in a publisher-subscriber
`model.
` There are no components for enabling or carrying
`out direct user-to-user communication and no such
`communication is indicated in Fig. 1 as the P&A
`server is shown connected to a single client
`terminal.
`● Exhibit 1007 at Fig. 1 and [0024]-[0031].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`38
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Figure 3 of Diacakis and the corresponding text
`only show and discuss the configuration of profiles
`stored at the P&A server and the transmission of
`the P&A information (including contact
`information, as shown in Fig. 8, [0056] and [0064])
`to subscribers at various access groups.
` No user-to-user communication is indicated or
`implied.
`
`● Exhibit 1007 at Fig. 3 and [0033]-[0037].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`39
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Figure 4 of Diacakis and the accompanying text
`again show that the P&A server 1) only collects
`P&A information from the clients and 2) only
`transmits availability information (including
`contact information, as explained above) to the
`subscribers.
` There are no diagrams or discussion of any
`components used for user-to-user communication.
`
`● Exhibit 1007 at Fig. 4 and [0038]-[0048].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`40
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Figure 5 is a “diagram of the process flow of the
`P&A management server 12 according to one
`embodiment” of Diacakis; in other words, the
`figure describes the main functionality and
`operation of the P&A server in Diacakis.
` The process shown in the figure and described in
`the corresponding text involves the processing of
`user profiles along with presence and availability
`information, and the distribution of availability
`information (including contact information, as
`explained above) to subscribers.
` The process provides no evidence whatsoever that
`the P&A server may initiate or carry out user-to-
`user communication as part of its functionality.
`● Exhibit 1007 at Fig. 5 and [0049]-[0050].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`41
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Figure 6 of Diacakis shows another embodiment of
`the P&A server that differs from the embodiments
`in Figs. 1 and 4 only in that it includes an adaptive
`feedback module 100.
` “The adaptive feedback module 100 may determine
`whether the individual’s availability information is,
`for example, inaccurate or unusable” and hence this
`embodiment does not add any capabilities or
`functions for user-to-user communication.
`
`● Exhibit 1007 at Figs. 1, 4, 6, and [0051]-[0052].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`42
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSAGES VIA THE NETWORK-BASED PORTAL …”
`
` Figure 7 and the corresponding text describe the
`process flow of the P&A server according to the
`embodiment of Fig. 6.
` As with Fig. 5 above, the process of Fig. 7 is
`limited to the processing and distribution of
`presence and availability information based on user
`profiles and provides no teaching or even a hint that
`the P&A server is used for user-to-user
`communication.
`● Exhibit 1007 at Figs. 6-7 and [0054]-[0055].
`
`PATENT OWNER'S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`IPR2022‐00202 & IPR2022‐00291
`
`43
`
`
`
`[1.8] “… TO ALLOW THE SECOND USER TO RECEIVE
`MESSA