`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,492,038
`
`Case IPR2022-00294
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BECAUSE THE ROUSKAS DECLARATION MERELY REPEATS
`THE POR IT IS ENTITLED TO NO WEIGHT ............................................. 3
`III. GROUND I: CLAIMS 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 39–41, 49, 51–53, 55,
`57–58, AND 64–66 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS ............ 4
`A. Diacakis Teaches A “Network-Based Portal” ....................................... 5
`B.
`Diacakis Teaches A “Prior Registration Process” .............................. 12
`C.
`Diacakis Teaches “Messages” ............................................................. 12
`D. Diacakis Teaches That A Second User’s Contact Information Is
`Not Provided To Others By Virtue Of The Second User
`Receiving A Message .......................................................................... 15
`IV. GROUND II: CLAIMS 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, AND 54 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS IN VIEW OF LOVELAND....... 18
`V. GROUND III: CLAIMS 37, 42, 56, 59–63, AND 67 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS IN VIEW OF
`TAKAHASHI ................................................................................................ 19
`VI. GROUND IV: CLAIM 45 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`DIACAKIS, LOVELAND, AND TAKAHASHI ......................................... 20
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
` Cases
`Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC,
`IPR2021-00304, Paper 30 ..................................................................................... 3
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions, Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00425 Paper 38 ...................................................................................... 3
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 12
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 7
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`LIST OF PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth in Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Kevin Almeroth
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/527,565
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/689,686
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0116461 (“Diacakis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,287,056 (“Loveland”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0183114 (“Takahashi”)
`
`Unused
`
`Unused
`
`IngenioShare’s Infringement Contentions in Texas Litigation
`
`Texas Litigation Proposed Scheduling Order
`
`Fourteenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under
`the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic
`Judge Albright’s Standing Order re Inter-District Transfer
`
`Kurose, J. and Ross, K., Computer Networking: A Top-Down
`Approach Feature the Internet (2000)
`Kuehn, S., A Play Theory Analysis of Computer-Mediated
`Telecommunication (Apr. 20, 1990)
`Telecomputing in Japan
`
`Hernandez, R., ECPA and Online Computer Privacy (1988)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`
`
`Miller, A., Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher
`Education and Human Resource Development (1991)
`Benimoff, N. and Burns, M., Multimedia User Interfaces for
`Telecommunications Products and Services (1993)
`Falconer, W. and Hooke, J., Telecommunications Services in the
`Next Decade (1986)
`Hine, N.A., et al., An Adaptable User Interface to a Multimedia
`Telecommunications Conversation Service for People with
`Disabilities (1995)
`Bazaios, A., et al., Multimedia Architecture Offering Open Distance
`Learning Services over Internet
`Stein, J., et al., Chat and Instant Messaging Systems (2002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,241,612 (“Heredia”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2003/0216178 (“Danieli”)
`
`International Patent Application WO 01/45343 (“Davies”)
`
`Grinter, R. and Palen, L., Instant Messaging in Teen Life (2002)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,407
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,736,664
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038 Claim Listing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,828,924 (“Gustavsson”)
`
`Unused
`
`Unused
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,204,268
`
`Declaration of Yimeng Dou Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`Comparison between Paper 17 (Patent Owner Response) and
`Ex. 2005 (Declaration of Professor George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.)
`Liferay.com, “What Is A Web Portal?” available at
`https://www.liferay.com/resources/l/web-portal
`Gartner, “Mobile Portal,” available at https://www.gartner.com/
`en/information-technology/glossary/mobile-portal
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. George Rouskas
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In the Institution Decision (“ID”), the Board credited Petitioner’s arguments,
`
`finding “there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least one claim challenged in the Petition” and instituting review of Claims 7–12,
`
`22–24, and 33–67 (the “Challenged Claims”). ID, 67. In its Patent Owner Response
`
`(“POR”), Patent Owner IngenioShare, LLC (“PO”) tacitly admits that Petitioner’s
`
`grounds render large swaths of the ’038 Patent obvious. Regarding Grounds I–IV
`
`(Diacakis in view of Loveland and Takahashi), PO does not specifically defend the
`
`Challenged Claims other than arguing that certain elements of Claim 7 are not
`
`rendered obvious by Diacakis. The few arguments PO does raise are unavailing.
`
`Regarding Diacakis (Ground I), PO specifically addresses only some elements
`
`of Claim 7, but as discussed immediately below, none of PO’s arguments is
`
`meritorious. Moreover, all rely on an expert declaration that merely parrots the POR,
`
`which is entitled to no weight. Ex. 2005 (“Rouskas Declaration”).
`
`• First, PO argues Diacakis fails to teach the claimed “network-based
`
`portal” (“NBP”) because PO argues the term “portal” does not include the
`
`user interfaces Diacakis discloses. Yet, PO’s own expert, Dr. Rouskas,
`
`admitted the term is not limited in that way. Moreover, as the Board
`
`previously found, PO’s construction would exclude the ’038 Patent’s
`
`preferred embodiments of the invention. ID, 23–24.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`• Second, PO argues Diacakis does not teach a “prior registration process,”
`
`but PO’s argument improperly injects a non-existent claim requirement
`
`that the registration must be done using the user’s device.
`
`• Third, PO argues Diacakis does not allow users to communicate, but this
`
`ignores Diacakis’s clear disclosures (and the Board’s findings) of client-
`
`to-client communication. ID, 40.
`
`• Fourth, PO argues Diacakis fails to teach the negative limitation of a
`
`recipient’s contact information not being provided to a sender by virtue of
`
`the communication. Yet, as the Board determined, Diacakis expressly
`
`discloses that users control what contact information others may view. ID,
`
`48.
`
`
`
`PO’s arguments regarding Diacakis’s combinations with Loveland and
`
`Takahashi (Grounds II–IV) are likewise unavailing. With respect to these
`
`combinations, PO merely repeats its Ground I arguments, including that Diacakis
`
`does not allow users to communicate, which is incorrect for the reasons indicated
`
`above. Thus, Claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 are invalid and obvious.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`II. BECAUSE THE ROUSKAS DECLARATION MERELY REPEATS
`THE POR IT IS ENTITLED TO NO WEIGHT
`The Rouskas Declaration repeats the POR nearly verbatim. Ex. 1040.1 This
`
`is a classic example of a cursory expert declaration the Board disregards. See, e.g.,
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sito Mobile R&D IP, LLC, IPR2021-00304, Paper 30 at 68 (declarant’s
`
`“cursory and unsupported testimony entitled to little weight” where it “repeat[ed]
`
`verbatim without any additional clarification Patent Owner’s contentions from the
`
`Patent Owner Response”). The Board previously disregarded another Rouskas
`
`declaration for this very reason. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions,
`
`Ltd., IPR2014-00425 Paper 38, at 13 (Rouskas declaration afforded “little weight
`
`because his testimony is conclusory and unsupported by evidentiary explanations”).
`
`Here, the Rouskas Declaration is “entitled to little or no weight” for the same
`
`reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`Dr. Rouskas’s deposition testimony further demonstrates that his declaration
`
`is unreliable. In PO’s preliminary response (“POPR”), it argued an NBP is “at the
`
`server-side” and cannot be a user interface in a client device. Paper 10, 1–2, 12–17.
`
`
`1 The declaration substantively differs from the POR only by citing to two webpages
`
`(Ex. 2005, 21), but these websites fail to advance PO’s NBP arguments, as discussed
`
`below in Section III.A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`Dr. Rouskas admitted he was retained months after the POPR was filed and that he
`
`did not review the POPR, yet he claimed he conceived of PO’s NBP argument.
`
`Ex. 1043, 25:2–26:2, 53:23–54:14. This is not credible; indeed, his declaration
`
`copied-and-pasted several portions of the POPR:
`
`POPR (Paper 10)
`
`Rouskas Declaration (Ex. 2005)
`
`
`
`
`
`E.g. Paper 10, 7–9, with Ex. 2005, ¶¶ 47–48. His declaration should be given no
`
`weight for the additional reason that it appears to contain opinions he did not
`
`develop.
`
`Moreover, as explained below, at his deposition Dr. Rouskas contradicted his
`
`declaration
`
`and
`
`admitted
`
`the opinions
`
`therein
`
`rest on
`
`fundamental
`
`misunderstandings of the challenged claims and prior-art references. Because the
`
`Rouskas Declaration contains no expert analysis nonredundant of the attorney
`
`argument in the POR and is contradicted by Dr. Rouskas’s own deposition
`
`testimony, it should be afforded no weight.
`
`III. GROUND I: CLAIMS 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 39–41, 49, 51–53, 55, 57–
`58, AND 64–66 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS
`Aside from the below limitations, PO does not dispute Diacakis teaches
`
`Claims 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 39–41, 49, 51–53, 55, 57–58, and 64–66 and some of
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`the elements of Claim 7. As to the few limitations PO does address, they are
`
`obvious.2
`
`A. Diacakis Teaches A “Network-Based Portal”
`As the Board recognized with respect to Element 7.0, giving the term
`
`“network-based portal” its “ordinary and customary meaning,” Diacakis discloses
`
`an NBP because it references a user interface in a client terminal connected to a
`
`P&A management server via a network. See ID, 22–24; Pet., 33–35; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 242. In both the ’038 Patent and Diacakis, the claimed functionality appears in
`
`mobile phones—which PO admits are client devices. POR, 19.
`
`In the POR, PO revives the same argument the Board already rejected: that
`
`the NBP resides only at the server-side of a network and excludes user interfaces of
`
`“client communication devices such as Diacakis’s client terminal 22.” POR, 11.
`
`PO’s argument is wrong for several reasons.
`
`First, PO relies on the Rouskas Declaration’s offering of extrinsic definitions
`
`to show that “portals” are websites, but Dr. Rouskas admitted “[t]here’s nothing to
`
`limit the portal to just a server or a website.” Compare POR, 11, with Ex. 1043,
`
`
`2 PO addresses Independent Claims 38 and 46 only with reference to Claim 7. POR,
`
`21–35.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`60:7–61:8; see also id., 57:7–11 (declining to equate “portals” to websites), 58:5–9
`
`(same). Moreover, Dr. Rouskas admitted the two definitions in the Rouskas
`
`Declaration were cherry-picked from search results for “portal” rather than from any
`
`nuanced inquiry or analysis. Id., 62:24–63:10. This method selectively disregarded
`
`definitions that include the word “interface.” See Exs. 1041 (“A portal is a web-
`
`based platform that collects information from different sources into a single user
`
`interface[.]”), 1042 (“A mobile portal is an Internet gateway that enables mobile
`
`devices to connect remotely . . . typically via a Web browser interface.”). In any
`
`event, PO’s argument limiting “portals” to websites is based on a fundamental
`
`misunderstanding of the claim, which Dr. Rouskas yielded in deposition: the
`
`Rouskas Declaration claims the NBP cannot be in a client device because it must be
`
`“hosted on [a] web server[],” but Dr. Rouskas acknowledged no claim limitation
`
`requires the NBP to be “hosted.” Compare Ex. 2005, ¶ 49 and Ex. 1043, 84:11–14,
`
`with id., 84:16–85:11.
`
`Second, PO incorrectly argues the ’038 Patent defines “portal” as a “gateway”
`
`and that a gateway is always a “networked server.” POR, 11–12. But the
`
`specification states that “[a] communication gateway or a portal is formed”—not
`
`that the portal is a communication gateway. Ex. 1001, 4:23–24. Indeed, the
`
`specification treats the phrase “portal or gateway” differently from the singular
`
`“portal,” using these phrases to describe different embodiments, indicating that
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`portals and gateways are two alternative means to establish communication. See id.,
`
`4:33–47; 4:48–62, 4:62–5:4. The specification further states that “[o]ne example of
`
`a networked server is a gateway computer”—not that all gateways are servers.
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:17–19. Dr. Rouskas admits as much. Ex. 1043, 96:20–97:1 (“It
`
`doesn’t say that [gateway] means network[ed] server, yes.”); see also id., 94:18–
`
`95:1; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 242. Dr. Rouskas nevertheless opines that the word “or” defines
`
`“portal” as “gateway.” Id., 90:17–24. But the ’038 Patent’s recitation of “portal or
`
`gateway” means the two are alternatives, not that one redefines the other. See
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(holding that the phrase “embedded within or attached to” did not redefine
`
`“embedded” as “attached” or vice versa).
`
`Third, PO argues 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.’” POR, 12–13. This is a
`
`distinction without a difference. As the Petition explains, Diacakis’s client terminal
`
`(1) connects a user to a network via the NBP and (2) is associated with that user.
`
`Pet., 33–35. For instance, as Dr. Rouskas admitted, a user’s mobile phone allows
`
`worldwide access to that user by allowing others to communicate with the user.
`
`Ex. 1043, 110:20–24, 114:2–5 (“One is worldwide access to the user. A phone
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`provides that, there’s no question about that.”). PO offers no explanation why such
`
`a device “is not accessible ‘worldwide.’” POR, 13, 15–16.
`
`Fourth, PO counters a strawman argument (that only the sender’s device
`
`contains the NBP) that Petitioner did not advance. POR, 14, 16–17, 27–28. Relying
`
`on this mischaracterization, PO concludes Diacakis cannot meet the NBP limitation,
`
`the identifier limitation (i.e., a user’s “corresponding identifier” is “set via the
`
`network-based portal”) because a recipient cannot use the sender’s device to set the
`
`recipient’s identifier, and the negative limitation (i.e., communicating without
`
`providing contact information) because senders’ devices would have access to
`
`others’ contact information. Id. This is incorrect.
`
`As the Petition explained, all users (including senders and recipients) use
`
`Diacakis’s NBP to connect to Diacakis’s network—i.e., the NBP does not solely
`
`exist in a sender’s device. Pet., 33–35; Ex. 1003, ¶ 242. As Diacakis explains,
`
`senders and recipients access the NBP via their respective devices. See Ex. 1007,
`
`[0031] (explaining that users of Diacakis’s system 10 instruct the system how, when,
`
`and from whom they prefer to receive communications). Accordingly, as shown
`
`below in Diacakis’s Figures 1 and 9, all users of communications system 10 access
`
`it via client terminals 22, which contain user interface 112 (i.e., the NBP), indicating
`
`that both senders and recipients use this interface:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`
`
`PRESENCE
`DETECTION
`
`Profile
`Database
`
`
`
`TERMIAL
`
`AVAILABILITY
`MANAGEMENT
`ENGINE
`
`
`
`ENGINE
`
` Availability information from
`
`P&A management server 12
`
`Fig. 1
`
`
`
`+40
`
`112
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 9. PO’s argument that Diacakis’s interface only allows sending
`
`(not receiving) messages fails for the same reasons. POR, 8, 22–25.
`
`Fifth, although the Board found PO’s argument excluded a preferred
`
`embodiment of the ’038 Patent (specifically Figures 7–11), PO insists its argument
`
`did not because the figures allegedly describe methods performed after receiving a
`
`message, rather than enabling receipt of a message. POR, 19–21. That is incorrect.
`
`The ’038 Patent’s claims state “the first message is received by the second user.”
`
`Ex. 1001, cls. 7, 38, 46. In fact, as the Board understood, key “recipient”
`
`functionality (i.e., allowing users to specify who may contact them and see their
`
`contact information), takes place “all in the phone,” since these phones
`
`“automatically manage the communication.” Id., 7:32–36; ID, 23–24. Thus, the
`
`NBP not only enables receipt of messages but also manages them. See Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 263.
`
`Moreover, contrary to PO’s argument, the client devices described by the ’038
`
`Patent enable messages to be received, as annotated in Figure 7 below:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 7; see also id., Figs. 8–11, 3:29–33, 9:22–10:5, 10:34–13:43, 15:12–
`
`
`
`16:19.
`
`
`
`Faced with this fact, PO argues these disclosures are “not embodiments for
`
`‘managing electronic communications using at least a network-based portal’ as are
`
`the claims of the ’038 Patent.” POR, 20. This is not correct. All of the ’038 Patent’s
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`independent claims recite an NBP—thus, because the patent’s figures are
`
`embodiments of the patent, they must include an NBP. PO remains silent as to the
`
`purpose of these disclosures, if not related to the claims. As the Board recognized,
`
`a construction “which excludes the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct.”
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). PO’s argument thus fails.
`
`B. Diacakis Teaches A “Prior Registration Process”
`With respect to Element 7.1, PO does not dispute that Diacakis’s users must
`
`undergo a prior registration process. Pet., 41–42. Rather, PO argues that “a user
`
`does not go through a registration process with their Contact app before they can use
`
`[Diacakis]; they simply open it and use it.” POR, 22. Yet, the claim merely requires
`
`a “prior registration process by the first user regarding the use of the network-based
`
`portal.” Ex. 1001, cl. 7. It does not require a user to register “with their Contact
`
`app”—which PO improperly attempts to inject. PO cites nothing suggesting a user
`
`could “simply open [] and use” Diacakis’s system without any registration. POR,
`
`22.
`
`C. Diacakis Teaches “Messages”
`With respect to Elements 7.3, 7.5, 7.7, and 7.8, PO argues Diacakis “does not
`
`teach a system that actually allows a user to make a communication.” POR, 22; see
`
`id., 8, 21–27, 35. That is wrong. As the Board concluded, Diacakis discloses a first
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`user sending a message to a second user. ID, 43; Pet., 39–42; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 250–253.
`
`Indeed, Diacakis expressly teaches two client devices communicating with each
`
`other: “a subscriber at client terminal 22 may first attempt to communicate with an
`
`individual at client terminal 140 via one or more intermediate relay hosts 142.”
`
`Ex. 1007, [0072]. Relay host 142 can be “a presence and availability host” such as
`
`Diacakis’s P&A server. See id. This client-to-client messaging is shown below in
`
`Figure 11, which Dr. Rouskas acknowledged in deposition:
`
`See id., Fig. 11; Ex. 1043, 145:10–16; 422:19–423:1 (admitting Diacakis teaches
`
`client-to-client communication either with a P&A host or without one). Diacakis’s
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`teachings “provide a user-friendly interface allowing subscribers to contact
`
`individuals without having to be concerned about different communication devices,
`
`their different communication devices, their addresses and capabilities.” See Pet.,
`
`44 (citing Ex. 1007, [0062]). Rather than knowing others’ phone numbers or
`
`addresses, a user “may instead refer to a single indicator and use that information to
`
`initiate point-to-point contact.” See id. The fact that Diacakis’s users may
`
`communicate without knowing others’ contact information necessarily means that
`
`they use Diacakis’s platform to communicate.3
`
`Despite this, PO argues Diacakis only informs users of other user’s presence
`
`and availability—essentially reducing Diacakis to a digital phone book—because in
`
`
`3 Moreover, in related proceedings, the Board noted that even if Diacakis had not
`
`expressly disclosed a recipient responding to a sender’s message, such a response
`
`would have been obvious. See ’727 ID, 23; see also Pet. 39–44; Ex. 1007, [0023]
`
`(noting that elements of “a typical communications network” (e.g., two users
`
`sending messages back and forth) are not discussed in detail “because such elements
`
`are well known in the art”). Accordingly, Diacakis not only discloses one user
`
`messaging another, but also renders at least obvious two users sending messages
`
`back and forth.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`a different proceeding (concerning the ’407 Patent), the Board concluded Diacakis
`
`does not teach a “server receiv[ing] the ‘message’ the subscriber is trying to convey.”
`
`POR, 26 (citing Ex. 2006 at 26). But PO misreads the Board’s findings. Regarding
`
`the ’407 Petition, while the Board found Diacakis teaches both a server and “point-
`
`to-point contact” between users, its basis for denial was its finding that messages are
`
`not received by Diacakis’s server. Ex. 2006 at 25. Because the ’407 Patent (but not
`
`the ’038 Patent) requires the server receive messages, the Board did not institute the
`
`proceeding. Id. at 22 (citing ’407 Patent, cl. 1), 26. The Board did not find that
`
`Diacakis failed to teach “messages,” as PO suggests, nor would that be consistent
`
`with its ID in this proceeding. ID, 40, 43, 45–46.
`
`D. Diacakis Teaches That A Second User’s Contact Information Is
`Not Provided To Others By Virtue Of The Second User Receiving
`A Message
`As the Board recognized with respect to Element 7.8, Diacakis teaches the
`
`negative limitation of “not provid[ing]” contact information because it expressly
`
`teaches that users may control what contact information others may view. ID, 47–
`
`48; Pet., 47–48; Ex. 1003, ¶ 263. As explained below, PO’s arguments to the
`
`contrary are incorrect.
`
`First, PO again argues the negative limitation is inconsistent with an
`
`interpretation that the NBP is within the sender’s device. POR, 27–28. But as
`
`explained above in Section III.A, this argument misrepresents Petitioner’s argument.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`Second, PO relies on Judge Chang’s dissenting opinion to argue that Diacakis
`
`does not teach the negative limitation (POR, 32–33), but the Board considered and
`
`rejected those views in granting institution. Neither the POR nor the Rouskas
`
`Declaration provides any additional analysis or evidence related to those already-
`
`considered views. Ex. 1043, 193:4–13. Moreover, as explained in the following
`
`paragraphs, PO’s arguments are unavailing.
`
`Third, PO argues the negative limitation is unmet because Diacakis includes
`
`examples (including Figure 8) where users’ contact information is provided to
`
`others. POR, 29–32. Yet, as the Board previously recognized, Diacakis’s users can
`
`choose (but are not required) to disclose their contact information, thereby satisfying
`
`the negative limitation. ID, 48; Pet., 47–48; Ex. 1003, ¶ 263. PO misleadingly
`
`quotes half a sentence from Diacakis to argue that when a subscriber attempts to
`
`send an IM, “server 12 provides the appropriate IM address to the subscriber.” Id.
`
`(quoting Ex. 1007, [0062]). But tellingly, the remainder of the sentence explains
`
`that the server “tak[es] into account [the recipient’s] preference settings for the
`
`subscriber’s access group as stored.” Ex. 1007, [0062]. Thus, the Diacakis system
`
`does not provide contact information simply because one user contacts another;
`
`rather, it determines whether or not to provide information subject to the recipient’s
`
`preferences.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`Fourth, PO improperly conflates two techniques that allow Diacakis’s users
`
`to control their interactions. PO argues that Diacakis’s descriptions of “blocked”
`
`individuals fail to teach the negative limitation that contact information is not
`
`provided. POR, 33 (citing Ex. 2007, 72–73). Blocking, however, is not the part of
`
`Diacakis that Petitioner relies on to teach the negative limitation. As explained in
`
`the Petition, users separately can “control what contact information observers are
`
`allowed to view.” Pet., 47–48 (citing Ex. 1007, [0007]); see also Ex. 1007, [0047]).
`
`PO’s argument regarding blocking is irrelevant to Diacakis’s disclosure of this
`
`independent method of control.
`
`Fifth, PO confuses Diacakis’s presence and availability (“P&A”) information
`
`with contact information, arguing that disclosure of the former necessarily means
`
`disclosure of the latter. POR, 29–32, 34–35; Ex. 1043, 168:7–11, 170:2–8. This is
`
`incorrect. Diacakis explains that P&A information means “what communications
`
`network a user is on, and whether or not the user is reachable for each of the
`
`networks.” Ex. 1007, [0006]. This is different from contact information, such as a
`
`phone number. See id., [0007], [0047] (treating P&A preferences differently from
`
`contact information preferences); Pet., 28–30; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 99–101. Although PO
`
`relies on the Rouskas Declaration for its misreading of Diacakis, Dr. Rouskas
`
`admitted his opinions were based on the misbelief that, under paragraph [0048],
`
`Diacakis’s users’ contact information is distributed to others, regardless of how users
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`specify their contact information should be distributed. Ex. 1043, 215:12–18. This
`
`passage, however, indicates that already-published contact information may be
`
`automatically updated to reflect changes to the user’s profile. Ex. 1007, [0048]; see
`
`also id., [0062] (indicating contact information is provided only in view of user’s
`
`preference settings). Thus, PO is wrong.
`
`IV. GROUND II: CLAIMS 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, AND 54 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS IN VIEW OF LOVELAND
`Regarding Claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, and 54, the Board found that
`
`“Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving these
`
`claims unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Diacakis and Loveland.” ID,
`
`58. Indeed, this combination would allow users to receive notifications of urgent
`
`messages and messages from important individuals. Pet., 69–73; Ex. 1003, ¶ 353.
`
`Despite this, PO argues Diacakis and Loveland are “diametrically opposite to
`
`each other” based on PO’s incorrect argument that Diacakis does not allow users to
`
`send messages back and forth. POR, 36. As explained in Section III.C, however,
`
`Diacakis teaches sending messages. Further, PO argues that Diacakis and Loveland
`
`are opposed because Diacakis teaches notifying “senders” while Loveland teaches
`
`notifying “recipients.” Id. This is a distinction without a difference. PO has not
`
`pointed to any evidence or reasoning suggesting that a communications system (like
`
`that of Diacakis or Loveland) cannot send notifications to senders and recipients
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`alike. Rather, as Dr. Almeroth explained, a POSITA would have understood that, in
`
`communications systems like Diacakis’s, recipients “would commonly receive a
`
`notification” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 326–27). PO’s attempt to limit Diacakis’s notifications
`
`to “senders” and Loveland’s notifications to “recipients” cannot stand.
`
`PO also argues without explanation that “it is not clear how the two systems
`
`would be combined, how the combination would operate, or what the combination
`
`would accomplish.” POR, 36. PO’s conclusory assertion should be disregarded. As
`
`explained in the Petition and by Dr. Almeroth, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to implement Loveland’s urgent message notification features in
`
`Diacakis’ communications system for several reasons—including notifying users of
`
`incoming urgent messages—which would have involved routine implementation
`
`with no technical risks. Pet., 69–73; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 152–161, 353.
`
`V. GROUND III: CLAIMS 37, 42, 56, 59–63, AND 67 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS IN VIEW OF TAKAHASHI
`Regarding Claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, and 67, the Board found that “Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving these claims
`
`unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Diacakis and Takahashi.” ID, 64.
`
`Indeed, implementing Takahashi’s predetermined messaging features in Diacakis’
`
`communications system would allow users to achieve efficient communication with
`
`minimal disruption. Pet., 75–78; Ex. 1003, ¶ 370.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2022-00294 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,492,038)
`
`
`Despite this, PO argues Diacakis and Takahashi are “antithetical to each
`
`other” only based on PO’s incorrect argum