`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00202
`Patent No. 10,142,810
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR
`GEORGE N. ROUSKAS, PH.D.
`_____________________________________________________
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`…………………………………
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………
`
`QUALIFICATIONS …………………………………..…………..
`
`BASES OF OPINIONS …………………………………..…………..
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS …………………..………
`
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art …………………………………
`
`B.
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) …………………………..
`
`
`
`TERMINOLOGY ………………………………………………………
`
`GROUND I – DIACAKIS DOES NOT OBVIATE
`CLAIMS 1-20 ………………………………………………………
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Diacakis (Exhibit 1007) …………………………………
`
`
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`Diacakis Does Not Provide Or Support
`Messages ………………………………………..
`
`[1.0] “Network-Based Portal” …………………………..
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A “Portal” Is Not A User Terminal Or
`A “Client Communication Device” …………….
`
`The ʼ810 Specification Defines “Portal”
`As A “Gateway” And Defines A “Gateway”
`As A “Networked Server”
`……………………
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Functionality Of A “Portal” Is Different
`Than That Of A Client Communication Device …..
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`1
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`8
`
`9
`
`12
`
`12
`
`12
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`The Claims Also Distinguish A “Portal”
`From A Client Communication Device
`
`……….
`
`23
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G
`
`H.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The User Interface Of Diacakis Is Not A
`“Portal” ………………………………………..
`
`Dr. Almeroth’s Testimony Is Not Supported
`By The Specification …………………………..
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Of A NBP
`Does Not Exclude A Preferred Embodiment ………
`
`[1.0] Summary …………………………………
`
`[1.1] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ……………………
`
`[1.3] “All” “Communications” “Use One Identifier”
`Is Not Obviated By Diacakis …………………………..
`
`[1.4] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ……………………
`
`[1.6] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ……………………
`
`[1.8] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ……………………
`
`[1.9] “Even When The Message Is Received”
`“The Contact Information” “Is Not Provided”
`Is Not Obviated By Diacakis …………………………..
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Petitioner’s Positions On “NBP” And
`“Contact Information Not Provided” Are
`Incompatible
`…………………………………
`
`Diacakis Teaches That The Recipient’s
`Contact Information Is Sent To The Sender’s
`Client Device …………………………………
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Diacakis Teaches A POSITA That Contact
`Information Is Provided ……………………
`
`ii
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`29
`
`29
`
`29
`
`31
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`35
`
`36
`
`36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`ii
`
`iii
`
`The Board Already Determined That
`Diacakis Teaches A POSITA That Contact
`Information Is Provided ……………………
`
`Judge Chang Also Determined That Diacakis
`Teaches A POSITA That Contact Information
`Is Provided …………………………………
`
`Diacakis’s Blocked Users Do Not Receive A
`Message ………………………………………..
`
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`4.
`
`[1.9] Summary …………………………………
`
`[3.0] “Group Messaging” Using The One Identifier ……..
`
`[7.0] “Depends On A Time” …………………………..
`
`K.
`
`[10.0] “Voice Mail” …………………………………
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUND II – HULLFISH COMBINED WITH TANIGAWA
`DOES NOT OBVIATE CLAIMS 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 TO A
`POSITA …………………………………………………….………
`
`
`Tanigawa (Exhibit 1008) …………………………………
`
`A.
`
`B. Hullfish (Exhibit 1009) …………………………………
`
`C. A POSITA Would Not Be Motivated To Combine
`Tanigawa And Hullfish To Implement The Claimed
`Invention Of The ʼ810 Patent …………………………..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tanigawa And Hullfish Are Incompatible ………
`
`Petitioner’s Alleged Motivation To Combine
`Is Nonsense ………………………………………..
`
`[1.0] “Network-Based Portal” …………………………..
`
`1.
`
`A “Portal” Is Not A User Terminal Or A
`Client Communication Device ……………………
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`41
`
`41
`
`42
`
`42
`
`42
`
`43
`
`48
`
`48
`
`49
`
`52
`
`54
`
`56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The ʼ810 Specification Defines “Portal” As
`A “Gateway” And Defines A “Gateway” As
`A “Networked Server” …………………………..
`
`The Functionality Of A “Portal” Is Different
`Than That Of A Client Communication Device …..
`
`The Claims Also Distinguish A “Portal”
`From A Client Communication Device ……………
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Is Contradictory ……..
`
`Tanigawa’s User Interface Is Not A
`“Network-Based Portal” …………………………..
`
`[1.1] Is Not Obviated By The Combination Of
`Tanigawa And Hullfish …………………………………
`
`[1.3] “All” “Communications” “Use One Identifier” …….
`
`[1.5] “Block” Is Not Obviated By The Combination …….
`
`[1.6] The Combination Does Not Obviate “Enabling,
`Via The Network-Based Portal” “Based On The One
`Identifier” “In View Of The Second User Not Blocking
`The First User” ………………………………………..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`[1.9] Is Not Obviated By The Combination …………….
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`The Petitioner’s Positions On “NBP” And “Contact
`Information Not Provided” Are Incompatible ……..
`
`The Combination Teaches That The Recipient’s
`Contact Information Is Sent To The Sender’s Client
`Communication Device …………………………..
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Tanigawa Teaches A POSITA That Contact
`Information Is Provided ……………………
`
`iv
`
`56
`
`57
`
`58
`
`59
`
`60
`
`62
`
`62
`
`64
`
`66
`
`66
`
`66
`
`68
`
`68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Tanigawa Teaches A POSITA That IM
`Clients Receive Presence Information ………
`
`Tanigawa Teaches A POSITA That IM
`Clients Use Client Addresses To Initiate
`Communication …………………………..
`
`Tanigawa Does Not Teach Or Suggest Hiding
`Contact Information …………………………..
`
`Petitioner Did Not Present Any Evidence
`Regarding A POSITA For [1.9] ……………………
`
`Petitioner’s Unsupported Attorney Argument Is
`Wrong And Is Outweighed By Patent Owner’s
`Evidence ………………………………………..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………
`
`
`
`
`J.
`
`6.
`
`[1.9] Summary …………………………………
`
`Claims 11-20
`
`………………………………………..
`
`70
`
`72
`
`72
`
`73
`
`73
`
`75
`
`75
`
`76
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is George Rouskas. I have been retained as an expert
`
`witness to provide my independent opinions in regards with matters at issue in the
`
`inter partes review of U.S. 10,142,810 (“the ’810 Patent”) in the IPR2022-00202.
`
`I have been retained by IngenioShare LLC, the Patent Owner, in the above
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge, and if called to testify about this declaration, I could and
`
`would do so competently and truthfully.
`
`3.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications including cases in
`
`which I was an expert has been submitted as Exhibit 2008 and is summarized in
`
`Section II, infra.
`
`4.
`
`I am not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I have
`
`applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am an Alumni Distinguished Graduate Professor with Tenure in the
`
`Department of Computer Science at North Carolina State University (NC State),
`
`where I also serve as the Director of Graduate Programs. I am an experienced
`
`researcher and educator in the field of computer networking, with expertise in
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Internet architectures and protocols, virtualization and cloud computing, mobile
`
`devices, network devices, network security and security protocols, in a variety of
`
`applications including providing for the protection of information transmitted
`
`between devices within and among networks.
`
`6.
`
`I have thirty-three years of experience in computer networking since I
`
`received my bachelor’s degree in 1989. I have twenty-eight years of experience as
`
`a professor in the Department of Computer Science of NC State.
`
`7.
`
`I have taught courses on computer networks, Internet protocols, data
`
`structures and computer performance evaluation. In 1997, I created one of the
`
`world’s first graduate level courses on Internet Protocols, which I continue to teach
`
`regularly, and in which I cover in depth topics related to wireless and mobile
`
`networks and real-time communications.
`
`8.
`
`In my career in this field, I have received numerous accolades for my
`
`contributions to computer networking, including being elected as Fellow of the
`
`IEEE in 2012. Other accolades include the Outstanding Service Award for the
`
`Optical Networking Technical Committee (ONTC) of the IEEE Communication
`
`Society (2019); the Joyce Hatch Service Award from the NC State Chapter of the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery/Association of Information Technology
`
`Professionals (ACM/AITP) (2018); the title of Distinguished Lecturer in the IEEE
`
`(2010-2012); an IBM Faculty Award (2007); the Best Paper Award for the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`International Workshop on End-to-End Virtualization and Grid Management
`
`(EVGM) (2007) (with C. Castillo and K. Harfoush); the Best Paper Award for the
`
`International Symposium on Communication Systems, Networks and Digital
`
`Signal Processing (CSNDSP) (2006) (with B. Chen and R. Dutta); the ALCOA
`
`Foundation Engineering Research Achievement Award, NC State College of
`
`Engineering (2004); the Alumni Outstanding Research Award, NC State (2003);
`
`the CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation (1997); and the
`
`Graduate Research Award from the Georgia Tech College of Computing (1994).
`
`9.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science (Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology, 1994); M.S. in Computer Science (Georgia Institute of Technology,
`
`1991); and B.S. in Computer Engineering (National Technical University of
`
`Athens, 1989).
`
`10.
`
`In 2000-2001, while on Sabbatical from NC State, I worked as
`
`Network Architect for Vitesse Semiconductor, where I was responsible for the
`
`design of a state-of-the-art 2.5 Gbps network processor.
`
`11. My work as an academic began in 1994, when I joined NC State as an
`
`Assistant Professor. In 1999, I was promoted to Associate Professor with Tenure.
`
`In 2002, I was promoted to the position of Professor.
`
`12.
`
`I have held visiting positions on the faculties of a number of
`
`international universities, including positions as a Distinguished Scientist at King
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Abdulaziz University (Saudi Arabia, 2013-2021); Visiting Professor at the
`
`Laboratoire d’Informatique University of Paris 6 (France, October 2012); Visiting
`
`Professor at the Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria (Chile, December
`
`2008); and Visiting Professor at the Laboratoire de Méthodes Informatiques
`
`University of Evry (France, July 2006, December 2002, June 2000).
`
`13.
`
`I have received funding from numerous agencies, foundations and
`
`companies for research on network design and communication. The sources of
`
`funding for this research include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Security
`
`Agency (NSA), Microsoft, IBM and Cisco.
`
`14.
`
`I have served in a number of leadership roles for the IEEE, including
`
`as Chair of the IEEE Communications Society’s Distinguished Lecturer Selection
`
`Committee (2016-2017); Vice Chair of the IEEE Communications Society’s
`
`Technical and Educational Activities Council (2016-2017); and Chair of the IEEE
`
`Communications Society’s Optical Networking Technical Committee (2016-2017).
`
`15.
`
`I have served in various founding, editorial and leadership positions
`
`for publications in my field, including as founding Editor-in-Chief of IEEE
`
`Networking Letters (2018-2021); founding Editor-in-Chief, Elsevier Optical
`
`Switching and Networking Journal (2004-2017); Associate Editor, IEEE/OSA
`
`Journal of Communications and Networking (2010-2012); Co-Guest Editor, JCM
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Journal of Communications, Special Issue on the “Advances in Communications
`
`and Networking,” vol. 6, no. 9, December 2011; Associate Editor, IEEE/ACM
`
`Transactions on Networking (2000-2004); Associate Editor, Computer Networks
`
`(2001-2004); Associate Editor, Optical Networks (2000-2004); and Co-Guest
`
`Editor, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Special Issue on
`
`“Protocols for Next Generation Optical WDM Networks,” vol. 18, no. 10, October
`
`2000.
`
`16.
`
`I have graduated twenty-five Ph.D. students. Two have received
`
`Ph.D. dissertation awards, one has received an NSF Career award, one became an
`
`NSA Fellow, and one has been inducted in the NC State Computer Science Alumni
`
`Hall of Fame. Three of my former Ph.D. students became Assistant Professors
`
`upon graduation, and the rest joined significant technology companies or research
`
`institutes, including RENCI (UNC-Chapel Hill), IBM Research, Google,
`
`Facebook, Cisco, Oracle, Ericsson, Riverbed Technologies, Sprint, and Sierra
`
`Wireless, among others. I have also graduated twelve M.S. thesis students.
`
`17. During the course of my career, I have had more than 200 scientific
`
`articles, three books, and ten book chapters published, which have collectively
`
`received more than 9,400 citations (Google Scholar, March 14, 2022). These are
`
`summarized in attached my curriculum vitae (see Ex. 2002).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`BASES OF OPINIONS
`
`18.
`
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`
`have reviewed at least the items listed below:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,142,810 and its prosecution history;
`
`Petition in IPR2022-00202, including the exhibits;
`
`iii. Declaration of Almeroth (Exhibit 1003);
`
`iv.
`
`vi.
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2022-00202;
`
`Exhibit 2001, Complaint;
`
`vii. Exhibit 2002, Epic Games Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions;
`
`viii. Exhibit 2003, Order Setting Markman Hearing;
`
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`Exhibit 2004, Epic Games Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief;
`
`Exhibit 2006, Decision Denying Institution, IPR2022-00297 (PTAB
`
`May 26, 2022); and
`
`xi.
`
`Exhibit 2007, Judge Chang, IPR2022-00294, Paper No. 13 (PTAB
`
`June 7, 2022) (dissent).
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`19. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, which I understand is sometimes referred to as
`
`an “ordinary artisan” or by the acronyms “POSITA” (person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`art) or “PHOSITA” ” (person having ordinary skill in the art), as of the time of the
`
`invention, which I understand is here assumed to be at least as early as April 27,
`
`2005 (Exhibit 1003, Almeroth Declaration at 26, ¶58). I understand that the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean relevant to the
`
`challenged claims of the ’810 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in assessing the level of skill of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, one should consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`prior solutions to those problems found in the prior art references, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of
`
`education of active workers in the field, and my own experience working with
`
`those of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`In this case, Dr. Almeroth has asserted in his declaration that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the ’810 Patent would have had
`
`“a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or an equivalent field and three to five
`
`years of experience working with Internet communication systems. Additional
`
`education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Exhibit 1003,
`
`Almeroth Declaration at 32, ¶74. I have employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition in
`
`this declaration.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I was at the time of invention, and am, at least one of more than
`
`ordinary skill in the art through my education and research experience. As of the
`
`date of the invention, I was and am very familiar with telecommunications
`
`systems, Internet communications systems, computer networks, communications
`
`protocols, Internet protocols, including systems and protocols related to voice
`
`communications, SMS and text communications, group communications, and
`
`wireless communications. Indeed, I am very familiar with people having this level
`
`of skill in the area of Internet communications systems and protocols. I have been
`
`teaching undergraduate and graduate level courses in computer network
`
`architecture and protocols, including various techniques for voice communications,
`
`SMS and text communications, group communications, and wireless
`
`communications.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`23.
`
`I understand that claims of the ʼ810 patent in this IPR are generally
`
`interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning taking into
`
`consideration the so-called “intrinsic evidence” of the patent consisting of (1) the
`
`claim language; (2) the specification; and (3) the prosecution history. I understand
`
`that the Board has discretion to take into consideration so-called “extrinsic
`
`evidence” including references (prior art and non-prior art) as well as definitions
`
`from dictionaries and treatises.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that claim terms may be explicitly defined in the patent
`
`specification, or they may be implicitly defined through consistent usage in the
`
`specification. I also understand that the scope of claim terms may be limited by
`
`statements in the specification or prosecution history where the applicant clearly
`
`disavows or disclaims subject matter in a clear and unmistakable manner.
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a patent may be invalid if the claimed
`
`invention considered as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103. I have been
`
`informed that the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has met its burden of proof on obviousness: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (3) the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art. Based on these factual
`
`inquiries, it must then be determined, as a matter of law (4) whether or not the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the alleged invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a finding of obviousness requires a showing that as
`
`of the date of the invention (a) the prior art teaches or suggests each of the
`
`limitations of the claim; (b) there exists an apparent reason or motivation to
`
`combine and/or modify the prior art as proposed; and (c) a person of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`would have a reasonable expectation of success, including that the proposed
`
`combination and/or modification of the prior art would operate for its intended
`
`purpose.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of the elements was independently known in the prior art.
`
`I have been informed that many, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks
`
`already known, and claimed inventions almost of necessity will likely be
`
`combinations of what is already known.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry to
`
`identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have given
`
`a POSITA motivation to combine and/or modify the prior art references in the
`
`manner proposed by the Petitioners so as to arrive at the claimed invention. Put
`
`another way, a finding of obviousness should be supported by an apparent reason
`
`to combine and/or modify the prior art references as proposed by the Petitioners.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that the obviousness inquiry should guard against
`
`hindsight bias or hindsight reconstruction where after-the-fact reasoning is applied
`
`to combine prior art elements using the claimed invention as a template, without
`
`establishing that, as of the date of the invention, there exists a motivation to
`
`combine or apparent reason to combine and/or modify the prior art as proposed.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry
`
`that it is understood how the combination of references is supposed to work. An
`
`explanation of the operation of the combined references is often a prerequisite to
`
`showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`make the proposed combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so.
`
`31.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed to consider both the
`
`ordinary creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`also understand that it is impermissible for common sense to be applied so as to fill
`
`gaps in prior art that fails to teach or suggest a limitation of the claim.
`
`32.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed that, in order to
`
`qualify as proper prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must qualify as
`
`analogous art. I have been informed that a reference qualifies as analogous art with
`
`respect to the claims if it is either: (1) from the same field or endeavor as the
`
`patent; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`
`addressed by the invention. I have also been informed that in order for a reference
`
`to be reasonably pertinent, it must logically have commended itself during the
`
`ordinary course of development to an inventor’s attention in considering his
`
`problem.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`TERMINOLOGY
`
`33. The claims of the ʼ810 patent use the term “first user” to refer to the
`
`sender and “second user” to refer to the recipient of a message. The specification
`
`and the prior art references use other terminology as well, including “user,”
`
`“client,” “subscriber,” “person,” etc. To avoid confusion, Patent Owner and I use
`
`the terms “sender” and “recipient” herein.
`
`GROUND I – DIACAKIS DOES NOT OBVIATE CLAIMS 1-20
`
`A. Diacakis (Exhibit 1007)
`
`34. 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].
`
`
`
`35. Diacakis’s presence and availability (P&A) management system
`
`determines whether a user is present on the network (i.e., whether the user’s device
`
`is powered on); determines whether a user is available on the network (whether the
`
`user is willing to receive communications from others); and communicates P&A
`
`information to others, depending on the user’s preference.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36. 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. 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. Thus, 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.
`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).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Diacakis Fig. 3 also shows that subscribers at the “Restricted” access
`
`level receive only the voicemail number, subscribers in the “Normal” access level
`
`receive the work phone number, voicemail number, and e-mail, and subscribers in
`
`the “Important” access level receive two phone numbers, a voicemail number, two
`
`e-mails, and an IM address. Also, “the indicator module 110 may determine
`
`whether an address for each data content type (e.g., telephone, text (IM), video,
`
`graphic, audio, etc.) has been transmitted from the P&A management server 12.”
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0066].
`
`
`
`38. According to Diacakis, the P&A management system employs a
`
`publisher-subscriber model that updates the subscribers of an individual’s presence
`
`and availability status as soon as the individual publishes a change to the profile:
`
`When the individual transmits a change in profile to the server 12, the
`server publishes the change to each of the connected clients 22 that
`are subscribers of the individual's information. The publisher-
`subscriber model enables subscribers to observe a particular
`individual’s P&A information instantly.
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0029].
`
`
`
`39. Subscribers access an individual’s P&A information on their client
`
`terminals via a “Contacts Program” akin to the Contacts application in today’s
`
`smartphones. Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0056] and Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`®?
`
`Voice Mall
`Work viral: (442) 555-1417
`Gall vmail: (412) 855-2222
`Home wml: (442) 585-3393
`Instant Message
`(a) Jonathanghabceo.com
`4) jenathangiedqes.cam
`Primary work E-mail: jonathan@abs.com
`Personal - web based E-mail: jonathandpdd.com
`
`Contact Properties
`
`Contact:
`
`Addresses:
`Voice
`
`Work: (412) 555-1234
`
`Work: (412) 556-2345
`
`Voice Mall
`Work vail: (412) 555-1111
`Cell vmail: (412) 555-2222
`Hame wmail: (442) $65-3333
`Instant Message
`Jonathan@abcco.com
`
`@) Jonathan@pdgco,com
`Primary work E-mail: jonathan@abs.com
`Personal - wed based E-mail: jonathan@adq.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`| Contacts
`FpAllene
`litdit
`--~@) CS) [Fenathan
`--B) Ge) ki
`S3aoe5
`2see
`®) °
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Contact Properties
`
`Contact:
`
`Contacts Program
`
`File View Contacts Help
`
`Addresses:
`Volce
`
`Work: (412) 555-1234
`
`Work: (442) 555-2945
`
`t|e
`
`
`
`
`As shown in the left-hand window of Fig. 8, a subscriber has access to the contact
`
`information of an individual:
`
`As illustrated, 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 instance, the left-hand window in Fig. 8
`
`shows multiple phone numbers, voice numbers, IM addresses, and e-mails for the
`
`contact “Jonathan” who is highlighted in the right-hand window of Fig. 8. Exhibit
`
`1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`40. Diacakis’s P&A management system updates the availability
`
`information by updating the indicator next to each availability means (i.e., piece of
`
`contact information):
`
`The contact information in the left hand window may be updated
`based on availability information transmitted from the identified
`individual’s P&A management server 12.
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0056]. For instance, according to the left-hand window,
`
`contact “Jonathan” is available by all means except the second IM address. Exhibit
`
`1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`41. Diacakis teaches conventional systems that display multiple entries
`
`for a contact, each entry corresponding to an available address, e.g., as in the left-
`
`hand window of Fig. 8, where there are multiple lines for contact Jonathan. Exhibit
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8. Diacakis, on the other hand, discloses a method which
`
`“may relate the various entries for an individual and merge them together as one
`
`entry.” Id. at [0059]. For instance, the left-hand window of Fig. 8 shows that
`
`contact Jonathan is available on one IM address but not the other. Id. at Fig. 8.
`
`This information is summarized in the right-hand window into a single IM icon
`
`that shows contact Jonathan as available through IM. Id. Similarly, contact
`
`Jonathan is available on both phone numbers listed in the left-hand window, and
`
`this is summarized into a single phone icon in the right-hand window that shows
`
`contact Jonathan as available via a telephone. Id.
`
`
`
`42. As explained in Diacakis, the user interface is implemented at the
`
`subscriber (client) terminal and is simply the interface of the subscriber’s Contact
`
`application:
`
`The indicator module 110 may receive availability information from
`one or more P&A management servers 12 and merge the contact
`information for each individual into a single indicator, as described
`previously in connection with FIG. 8, for display by the user interface
`112.
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0064]. Therefore, the user interface of Diacakis simply
`
`allows the subscriber who owns the device to access all his/her contacts and their
`
`availability – it does not enable worldwide access to a particular individual.
`
`
`
`43. Diacakis also teaches that the names appearing in Fig. 8 are simply
`
`the names of the subscriber’s contacts:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`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]. Diacakis’s use of first names in the Contacts
`
`Program indicates that these are not meant as unique identifiers.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Diacakis Does Not Provide Or Support Messages
`
`44. 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.
`
`45.
`
`In a related IPR proceeding, the Board recently determined that
`
`Diacakis does not provide messages from a subscriber to an individual:
`
`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.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2006, Decision Denying Institution, IPR2022-00297 at 26 (PTAB May 26,
`
`2022) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`[1.0] “Network-Based Portal” (“NBP”)
`
`46. The Petition defines a “network-based portal” as “a web page or
`
`interface that connects clients to a network.” See Petition at 34. Petitioner points to
`
`the “client terminal 22” containing the “user interface 112”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends “Diacakis’ client terminal 22” contains “a network-based
`
`portal”. See Petition at 33-34 (emphasis added).
`
`47. 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. See 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] (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`48. 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
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`example, a GUI (Graphical User Interface) or a CUI (Character-based user
`
`interface).” Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0063].
`
`1.
`
`A “Portal” Is Not A User Terminal Or A Client
`Communication Device
`
`49.
`
`“In the context of the Internet, a portal refers to any commonly used
`
`
`
`website serving as an entry point to the Internet, usually with many links to a wide
`
`variety of information, data, resources and services.” See,e.g.,
`
`https://ww