ORAL ARGUMENT
`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
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
