Kubala discloses the combination of an enhanced email application 208 and mandatory response
`
`functional unit 212 on a recipient computing device 204 (e.g., PDA), as illustrated in Figure 2
`
`(reproduced below). (See Kubala, iJiJ33-36; see also Williams, iJ187.)
`
`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`.FJ(J. 2
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 2.)
`
`Kubala also teaches or suggests the claimed functionality of "transmitting the
`
`acknowledgment of receipt to said sender PD A/cell phone immediately upon receiving a forced
`
`message alert from the sender PDA/cell phone." In fact, Kubala discloses that it was known "to
`
`generate return receipts to the sender when the sender's email message is received at its intended
`
`destination or when the recipient opens the e-mail message, thereby providing an acknowledgment
`
`that a particular message has been received." (Kubala, i]6.) Based on these teachings in Kubala, a
`
`POSA would have understood that the condition that causes the acknowledgement to be sent back
`
`to the sender is a configurable parameter, which could be set to occur when the sender's email
`
`message is received at its intended destination or, in other words, as soon as it is received at the
`
`recipient's device. (See Williams, iJiJ188-191.)
`
`- 59 -
`
`Verizon 1024 P5
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Page 1869
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`[2.2] means for controlling of the recipient PD A/cell phone upon transmitting said
`
`automatic acknowledgment and causing, in cases where the force message alert is a text
`
`message, the text message and a response list to be shown on the display of the recipient
`
`PDA/cell phone or causes, in cases where the forced message alert is a voice message, the
`
`voice message being periodically repeated by the speakers of the recipient PD A/cell phone
`
`while said response list is shown on the display;
`
`In the Final Written Decision, the Board states that "Kubala teaches e-mail application 206
`
`taking control of a PDA/cell phone" (See Google, IPR2018-01079, FWD at 52.):
`
`In light of the claim language and Specification, we would interpret the forced
`
`message alert software application program "effectively tak[ing] control" of a
`
`PDA/cell phone to mean that the application program does not allow a recipient to
`
`clear a text message and response list or stop a voice message from repeating until
`
`the recipient selects a response, because this is the only written description
`
`associated with taking control of a PDA/cell phone. Id.; see also id. at 8:52-57
`
`(explaining that when the recipient selects a response, the application program
`
`"releases control" of the recipient device, clearing the display and stopping
`
`repeating the voice message). The Specification offers no support for a broader
`
`interpretation of taking control of a PD A/cell phone.
`
`(See id.)
`
`We note that a finding that Kubala teaches e-mail application 206 taking control of
`
`a PDA/cell phone would be further supported by Kubala's disclosure that "the user
`
`must reply to the received e-mail in some manner before the e-mail application will
`
`allow the user to perform some other action."
`
`(See id at 52-53 (emphasis in original); see id. at 51.)
`
`Kubala teaches or suggests the structure and Kubala and Hammond disclose the claimed
`
`function of this limitation. Again, the structure for the recited "means for controlling ... " is a
`
`- 60 -
`
`Page 1870
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`software application program on a PDA that performs the recited function. (See supra Section
`
`VI.H.) Like this structure, Kubala discloses the combination of an enhanced email application 208
`
`and mandatory response functional unit 212 on a recipient computing device 204 (e.g., PDA).
`
`(Kubala, iJiJ33-36, FIG. 2; see also Williams, iJiJ192-193.)
`
`First, Kubala discloses the required function of "controlling ... the recipient PDA/cell
`
`phone upon transmitting said automatic acknowledgment." As discussed above, Kubala discloses
`
`various embodiments for requiring a response to an "e-mail message." And Kubala explains that its
`
`disclosure is not limited to only emails; instead, according to Kubala, "an e-mail message comprise
`
`various types of electronic messages, e.g., text messages, instant messages, fax messages, voicemail
`
`messages, video messages, audio messages, and other types of messages." (Kubala, iJ32.) Each of
`
`the embodiments that Kubala explicitly discloses and suggests "represent[s] a different way of
`
`attempting to fulfill a request from the sender of the original message that the recipient should or
`
`must provide a reply message in response to the original message." (Id, iJ54.) In particular, Kubala
`
`discloses that "the user must reply to the received e-mail message in some manner before the e-mail
`
`application will allow the user to perform some other action." (Id, iJ53.) As the Board noted, these
`
`disclosures satisfy the "controlling" limitation. (Google, IPR2018-01079, FWD at 52-53 ("We note
`
`that a finding that Kubala teaches e-mail application 206 taking control of a PD A/cell phone would
`
`be further supported by Kubala' s disclosure that 'the user must reply to the received e-mail in some
`
`manner before the e-mail application will allow the user to perform some other action."') ( emphasis
`
`in original) (citing Kubala, iJ53); see also Williams, iJ194.)
`
`~ ......... ~-.». ..... - . . - - - - - - - - - ---~ ............ .._....._ __ _
`
`E•rnal! app¾k-efun ~-mnin~/
`1..t~
`Th~ ~ssage that you aro curr~mly reviewing shot.ild not be
`c¼.~~ until y<.w r~-ajy 1<s th¢ m,~~s.,1ge, Ch<xi$~ oo~ ~'if~
`QPfu)r¼< from Um m~m; to ~-t'netal~ an lNSi ANi roply ro th¾i
`m~~~ or s~l~-t ''CAt,ICEL" to ◊¾:lse- \!\<l~t se-ndlng $ reply,
`
`m(i--,,{ ('.-ANi:.:a.)
`
`~H$-'"-·" ~NSTA.~·{\
`\"""""""'"·.>
`
`(Kubala, FIG. l lC.)
`
`- 61 -
`
`Page 1871
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Although the specific embodiment illustrated in Figure 11 C shows that a user can "select
`
`'CANCEL' to close without sending a reply," Kubala also explicitly teaches that "the recipient can
`
`be prevented from closing a review of the received e-mail message, from deleting the received e(cid:173)
`
`mail message, and from exiting the e-mail application until the recipient has responded to the
`
`received email message." (Kubala, i]9, FIG. l lC; see also id, iJ55.) Moreover, Kubala also
`
`discloses that a recipient being required to respond to a mandatory-response message is a
`
`configurable feature. (See id, i]i]9, 54-55, 59-60.) For example, the recipient may be required to
`
`respond "when the recipient first reviews the e-mail message." (Id, iJ60; see also Williams, iJ195.)
`
`Kubala' s Figure l lA (reproduced below) shows an example of alerting a user by displaying
`
`a warning message 1102 when an e-mail message that contains a mandatory request flag is
`
`received, and shows that the recipient "must provide a reply message in response to the original
`
`message." (Id., iJ54; see also Williams, iJ196.)
`
`IRl
`E-rnaU appUcatiori "1Bmingf
`110.2.
`The message that you are currently reviewing cannot be dosed Fl G~ J 1/1
`until y-ou reply to the message,
`
`1 f 0 4~
`
`(Kubala, FIG. llA.)
`
`Second, Kubala teaches or suggests the claimed requirement of "causing, in cases where the
`
`force[ d] message alert is a text message, the text message and a response list to be shown on the
`
`display of the recipient PD A/cell phone or causes, in cases where the forced message alert is a voice
`
`message, the voice message being periodically repeated by the speakers of the recipient PD A/cell
`
`phone while said response list is shown on the display." As set forth above, Kubala explains that e(cid:173)
`
`mail message 214 may be a text message or a voicemail or audio message. (Kubala, iJ32.) Kubala
`
`discloses that when a reply to an email message with an associated mandatory-response flag has not
`
`been made, the enhanced email application 208 loops back to alert the recipient via 1012, as
`
`illustrated in Figure 10 (reproduced below). The looping back at 1012 has the effect ofresending
`
`the message-that can be a text or voice message-to the user until the user replies to the received
`
`message as required. (See id, iJ53, FIG. 10.) Thus, Kubala teaches or suggests these claimed
`
`functions. (See Williams, iJ197.)
`
`- 62 -
`
`Page 1872
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 10.)
`
`To the extent that it is argued that Kubala does not teach this limitation, Hammond's
`
`"system tracks whether each message has been delivered and reviewed by to [sic] each recipient,
`
`and uses the message information to resend the messages whose delivery or review is not
`
`confirmed." (Hammond, 2:47-50; see also id, Abstract, 2:1-8, 4:21-28, 5:5-6:20, 6:66-7:63, 10:48-
`
`63, FIGS. 2, 3A, 3B, 4, SA, SB.) As explained above (see claim [1.7] and Section IX.A 1), a POSA
`
`would have been motivated to combine Kubala and Hammond. (Williams, iJ198.)
`
`[2.3] means for allowing a manual response to be manually selected from the response list
`
`or manually recorded and transmitting said manual response to the sender PDA/cell phone;
`
`and
`
`Kubala discloses the structure and Kubala and Hammond disclose the claimed function of
`
`this limitation. The structure for this "means for ... " limitation is a software application program on
`
`a PDA that performs the recited function. (See supra Section VI.I.) Like this structure, Kubala's
`
`Figure 2 (reproduced below) shows that a receiving PDA (e.g., computing device 204) can receive
`
`- 63 -
`
`Page 1873
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`email message 214 from a sender PDA ( e.g., computing device 202). Kubala discloses an enhanced
`
`email application 208 and a mandatory-response functional unit 212 on a recipient PDA, which
`
`together are designed to receive and display a response list, and also transmit a selection from the
`
`response list to computing device 202-the sender PDA-via email message 218. (See Kubala,
`
`iJiJ33-36, 50-51, 61, FIG. 2; Williams, iJ199.)
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 2.)
`
`Kubala also discloses the required function of "allowing a manual response to be manually
`
`selected from the response list or manually recorded and transmitting said manual response to the
`
`sender PDA/cell phone." For example, Kubala states that the receiving e-mail application 208
`
`(shown above) may collect and record information about the manner in which the recipient
`
`responds to an e-mail message that has a mandatory-response flag. The information may include
`
`mandatory-response return-status codes included within the reply e-mail. (Kubala, i]i]41, 50-51, 61,
`
`FIG. 9.) Further, a POSA would know that a listing of the recorded information regarding the
`
`responses to e-mail messages were available and accessible. (See Williams, iJiJ200-202.)
`
`Hammond also provides this disclosure. Hammond discloses a "Message Receipt Tracker
`
`component [that] attempts to identify when sent messages have been delivered to recipients and
`
`when sent messages have been reviewed by recipients." (Hammond, 5: 17-20; see also id, 5:20-
`
`6:55.) Hammond's Figure 2 (reproduced below) shows a Message Tracking Table that includes
`
`detailed information about electronic messages that have been read by recipients. (See id, 6:56-
`
`8:45.) And Hammond discloses a Message Receipt Tracker routine (id, FIG. 4, 10:5-47) and a
`
`Message Tracking Table Processor routine. (Id, FIGS. SA, SB, 10:48-11 :48; see Williams, iJ203.)
`
`- 64 -
`
`Page 1874
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`1 H;. I "':';r' ii,
`
`:.:
`
`-~
`f~~~~::
`~ ~\,~··-.,, ...
`~
`~~
`
`:~
`
`~
`
`~
`
`';;,~ 1. -~ L~;~.
`.~~. I ,i,;" . ·:;: 1
`
`.... , .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.,, .. ·-"· ............... .,,,... ..... ·-·-·.-. .................................................. ,
`
`P~=$ ~~):..t
`t T:$;~:x·
`_:
`~ ~~:=:::::
`~~x::: k:x~
`) i~•~i:-:~~
`:
`=,w. ,N:-»"'~.;«;=i"'.' "~":1:~~:" t"r;:~:; ~
`
`:: ................................................... ...
`,,
`_,;
`
`I ...
`~
`:
`::
`\ , !
`~---.-.-.-.-................ -. ~ ............................... ~ ..................................... ~ ................. _
`
`==
`
`=
`
`:
`~
`···.··.·.-.-.-.-.· ........... · ................. -.-................. · ...................................................................... y .... ..
`
`:
`
`:
`
`~ !
`
`·,
`
`,/ ~;i?
`,:-., ~i
`
`,.
`
`....
`
`.
`
`f~
`
`........... ir •:'~
`
`}~~::~.
`
`}t~:.:-:-X-':.:~
`
`!;;\;()~;-:
`
`~
`1
`
`: ................... 3,.
`
`'
`'
`.
`. ........••• : .............................. ,,,~, .... ,,, .................... ,,,J ,, ....................... ,,, .. : .. ,.. ........... ..
`
`:
`
`,1
`
`l
`
`. .' ............................................. :
`
`As explained above (see claim [1.7]; see Section IX.A), a POSA would have been motivated
`
`to combine Kubala with Hammond. (See Williams, iJ204.)
`
`(Hammond, FIG. 2.)
`
`- 65 -
`
`Page 1875
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`[2.4] means for clearing the text message and a response list from the display of the
`
`recipient PDA/cell phone or stopping the repeating voice message and clearing the
`
`response list from the display of the recipient PD A/cell phone once the manual response is
`
`transmitted.
`
`Kubala teaches or suggests the features in this limitation. The structure for this "means for ..
`
`. " limitation is a software application program on a PDA that performs the recited function. (See
`
`supra Section VI.J.) Like this structure, Kubala discloses that a user can select a response from a
`
`menu of responses. Kubala' s use of the term "email message" includes "text messages, instant
`
`messages, fax messages, voicemail messages, video messages, audio messages, and other types of
`
`messages." (Id; see Kubala, iJiJ32-33, 57, FIG. l lC (reproduced below); see also Williams, iJ205.)
`
`'!JY,--~----------
`11:.U
`E•nmll appik~tion wamlng!
`................................... - . ............
`. , ~ss• , a · you are currflmiy mvt,~wing -s o . " no•
`·
`~ tr! t
`h tM 100
`'
`'
`'
`~).l<\~~ 1-mili ►'{)1.i nwlt w th~~ tn(*~"(~, O~'l$1:.1 ~~)~ t'\t thl:.l
`opfo:::m~ from frte menu to 9~~tat~ an INST ANT ~~l to the.½
`m-0i~ or s~~t "CANCGV to dos~ withoot s~"¾ilng $ t~!y,
`
`@
`
`F'' .. [.G. -~_. 1· .. ! (.~-
`_ _ _
`.
`
`~Ht•"-·'·<,~'Cf:.'t'
`'\.
`""""'"' _l
`~~1~•..___{ ~NS'fANT)
`
`(Kubala, FIG. l lC.)
`
`Kubala also teaches the required function of "clearing the text message and a response list
`
`from the display of the recipient PD A/cell phone or stopping the repeating voice message and
`
`clearing the response list from the display of the recipient PD A/cell phone once the manual
`
`response is transmitted." For example, after selecting a response from menu 1120, a user presses the
`
`"INSTANT" button 1118, which closes window 1112, thus clearing or stopping the text message,
`
`the repeating voice message, and a response list from the display of the recipient PDA, and
`
`generating a reply message. (Kubala, iJ57.) Kubala explains:
`
`"INSTANT" button 1118 closes window 1112 and then creates a reply e-mail
`
`message with an automatically generated reply message in which the message body
`
`is predetermined or pre-configured; in this example, when "INSTANT" button
`
`1118 is selected, the e-mail application determines which menu item within menu
`- 66 -
`
`Page 1876
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`1120 has been selected by the user as a quick response to the original e-mail
`
`message, thereby fulfilling the sender's request that the recipient is required to
`
`provide a mandatory response.
`
`(Id; see also id, iJiJ33-36, 49, 53-54, FIGS. 2, 8, 10, I IC; Williams, iJiJ205-208.) Thus, Kubala
`
`discloses this limitation.
`
`(b)
`
`Independent Claim 10
`
`[10.P] A method ofreceiving, acknowledging and responding to a forced message alert
`
`from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone, wherein the receipt,
`
`acknowledgment, and response to said forced message alert is forced by a forced message
`
`alert software application program, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`The primary difference between previously unchallenged claim 2 and previously challenged
`
`claim I is a so-called "take control" limitation of 2.2. (See Google, IPR2018-01079, FWD at 51-
`
`54.) The Board noted, however, that Kubala teaches this "take control" limitation. (Id) The claim
`
`limitation 10.2 includes the "take control" feature and is similar to claim limitation 2.2. Thus, as set
`
`forth in more detail below for each limitation, claim IO is obvious in view of Kubala and
`
`Hammond. (Williams, iJ209).
`
`The claim limitations of claim IO are similar to the claim limitations of claim 1. For
`
`example, the limitation IO.Pis similar to limitations l .P and 1.3 that were addressed above.
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Kubala discloses this limitation. First, Kubala
`
`discloses a "method of receiving, acknowledging and responding to a forced message alert from a
`
`sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone" as claimed. For example, Kubala discloses a
`
`communication system for receiving, and responding to an electronic message. (See Kubala, (54),
`
`Abstract.) Kubala also discloses a plurality of PDAs/cell phones that communicate with each other.
`
`(Id, i]i]27, 32-33, FIG. IA) In other words, one PDA/cell phone sends an electronic message (i.e.,
`
`"a sender PDA/cell phone") and another PDA/cell phone receives it (i.e., a "recipient PDA/cell
`
`phone"). (See Williams, i]210-21 l.)
`
`Second, Kubala also discloses "wherein the receipt, acknowledgment, and response to said
`
`forced message alert is forced by a forced message alert software application program" as claimed.
`
`- 67 -
`
`Page 1877
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Kubala discloses that it was known to "generate return receipts to the sender when the sender's e(cid:173)
`
`mail message is received at its intended destination or when the recipient opens the e-mail message,
`
`thereby providing an acknowledgement that a particular message has been received and/or opened."
`
`(Kubala, i]6; see also Williams, i]212.)
`
`Kubala's Figure 2 (reproduced below) illustrates an enhanced email application 208 that
`
`includes a mandatory-response functional unit 212. The combined enhanced email application 208
`
`and mandatory-response functional unit 212 read on the claimed "forced message alert software
`
`application program." Referring to Figure 2, Kubala explains that the mandatory-response
`
`functional unit 212 provides an email message 218 in response to an email message 214 with a
`
`mandatory-response flag 216. As discussed above, the mandatory-response flag 216 attached to the
`email message 214 reads on the claimed "forced message alert." (Id, iJ35; see also id, iJiJ13, 36; see
`also Section IX.A.2(a), claim [1.5]; see also Williams, i]i]212-213.)
`
`.Fl(r. 2
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 2.)
`
`Kubala' s Figure l lA (reproduced below) shows an example of alerting a user by displaying
`
`a warning message 1102 when an e-mail message that contains a mandatory request flag is
`
`received, and that the recipient "must provide a reply message in response to the original message."
`
`(Kubala, iJ54.) This demonstrates that the response to said forced message alert is forced by the
`
`combination ofKubala's enhanced email application 208 and mandatory response functional unit
`
`212.
`
`- 68 -
`
`Page 1878
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`J1.llZ
`E-mail application wamingf
`{8]
`The
`message thathyou are currently reviewing canoo t be ciose<J
`1
`untii you reptyto t e message,
`1 1 0 4~
`
`F1G. 11.1.1
`
`(Kubala, FIG. llA.)
`
`Kubala therefore expressly teaches or suggests this limitation. (See Williams, i]i]214-215.)
`
`[ 10.1] receiving an electronically transmitted electronic message; identifying said
`
`electronic message as a forced message alert, wherein said forced message alert comprises
`
`of a voice or text message and a forced message alert application software packet, which
`
`triggers the activation of the forced message alert software application program within the
`
`recipient PDA/cell phone;
`
`The limitation 10.1 is similar to limitation 1.5 that was addressed above.
`
`Kubala discloses this limitation. Kubala discloses "receiving an electronically transmitted
`
`electronic message; identifying said electronic message as a forced message alert, wherein said
`
`forced message alert comprises of a voice or text message and a forced message alert application
`
`software packet, which triggers the activation of the forced message alert software application
`
`program within the recipient PDA/cell phone," as claimed. (Williams, i]216)
`
`For example, Kubala discloses the claimed forced message alert software application
`
`program as the combination of an enhanced email application 208 and mandatory response
`
`functional unit 212 on a receiving computing device 204 (e.g., receiving PDA) that receives email
`
`message 214, as illustrated in Figure 2 (reproduced below). (See Kubala, iJiJ33-36; see also
`
`Williams, i]i]2 l 6-2 l 7.)
`
`- 69 -
`
`Page 1879
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`.......... , .... ,, ... , .... , .... ...._ ~--. __ ._ ...... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,".·
`,, .... , ............ , ................................................ ,.,"-.. ,, ........................................ ,." .. :-.,,,,,,. '"
`"'' !
`fil<: !
`" · r,. · ,,, ~, .:.~"':":" ] 1 '· · '., d() "
`~......................
`"' r ~ .. ~~ "".h~l
`a~~•. ~~$$ ~CE ill ~
`~ O.."¼tP{JtlN .. ~ ")E'il~- ~~ ~
`~
`~ ~\: ·oo "T".
`~:
`~ tc~. Jh~ WG -~ . ./l<...,,.
`·" ,.;-....
`~ t,, ............ ~ r ............................................... , .... --=-----, l
`I ,~----......... , ...................................................... 1 i,, ............ ,
`t~A-NnA1t~~Y
`~
`f !
`fZff~:WON$f ft.Ml l.t~l !
`! !
`!
`trNHANZ'>EO f.:UN(
`~
`ENHAl\~iMIM.•\}t
`t ...... ::::::::::::=:::: ......... ,w.,""'"""J
`i ~
`... t\f>f,\.JC~JKJ,~ ~ ~
`At~>tK~ 1K)N ~~ ..
`~
`]
`i
`..
`r............................................................
`~
`~
`I
`~ ,
`f-~~ .. t.Jt ~~~S:tt&.<*~· z.:t:§} !
`:-.,,,,,,,,,,, ...... ,,-..:,..-.,,,, ...... , ...... ~ ~
`~
`i ___ ,:_._""'"'"•""""'"""""'·": ______ : ll
`i
`i
`~
`MANOAlf;,'1Z¥
`t-..Wlifl.,tl\)~'\'
`·1
`i \ M>\t..'DATORY-
`l'
`!
`ll
`l
`R"f..$'>'()~~
`RtS..t>t}N&t~
`t
`!
`\ i
`l
`fl..l¾CT!ONl:-t U~1'
`RHW-t)~~:
`l~UNC'fK)t..At UMT
`1 k-----J \ Rr.s~),~% ,~,),% 1 ~-------l'
`112
`im
`:-.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-..-,,,,,,,,,,,,, ... ,,,,,.._
`i ~
`] ~
`-~
`!
`...........................................................................
`t ...... : ... "''''''''~''''''''''''''''''''''''''''': ... J
`"""""""':: .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"J
`''"''""'"""""""""""""""""""""':"
`
`.
`
`[
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 2.)
`
`The claimed "forced message alert [that] comprises of a voice or text message and a forced
`
`message alert application software packet" is met by Kubala' s disclosure of email message 214 and
`
`the mandatory response flag 216. Kubala explains that e-mail message 214 may be a text message,
`
`voicemail message, audio message, video message, or other type of message. (Kubala, iJ32; see also
`
`Section IXA2(a); see also claim [1.5].) Kubala also explains that "[m]andatory response flag 216
`
`acts as an indicator ... to e-mail application 208 that e-mail message 214 should be handled as an
`
`important message with a required mandatory response. Mandatory response flag 216 may be
`
`implemented in a variety of data formats .... " (Kubala, iJ35; see also id, iJiJ36-41, FIGS. 3, 4; see
`
`also Williams, iJ218.) Kubala therefore expressly teaches or suggests this limitation.
`
`[10.2] transmitting an automatic acknowledgment ofreceipt to the sender PDA/cell phone,
`
`which triggers the forced message alert software application program to take control of the
`
`recipient PD A/cell phone and show the content of the text message and a required response
`
`list on the display recipient PD A/cell phone or to repeat audibly the content of the voice
`
`message on the speakers of the recipient PD A/cell phone and show the required response
`
`list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone; and
`
`The limitation 10.2 is similar to limitations 1 .4 and 1.8 that were addressed above.
`
`Limitation 10.2 also and includes a "take control" limitation.
`
`In the Final Written Decision, the Board states that "Kubala teaches e-mail application 206
`
`taking control of a PDA/cell phone." (See Google, IPR2018-01079, FWD at 52.):
`
`- 70 -
`
`Page 1880
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`In light of the claim language and Specification, we would interpret the forced
`
`message alert software application program "effectively tak[ing] control" of a
`
`PDA/cell phone to mean that the application program does not allow a recipient to
`
`clear a text message and response list or stop a voice message from repeating until
`
`the recipient selects a response, because this is the only written description
`
`associated with taking control of a PDA/cell phone. Id.; see also id. at 8:52-57
`
`(explaining that when the recipient selects a response, the application program
`
`"releases control" of the recipient device, clearing the display and stopping
`
`repeating the voice message). The Specification offers no support for a broader
`
`interpretation of taking control of a PD A/cell phone.
`
`(See id)
`
`We note that a finding that Kubala teaches e-mail application 206 taking control of
`
`a PDA/cell phone would be further supported by Kubala's disclosure that "the user
`
`must reply to the received e-mail in some manner before the e-mail application will
`
`allow the user to perform some other action."
`
`(See id at 52-53 (emphasis in original); see id. at 51.)
`
`Kubala and Hammond disclose this limitation. First, Kubala discloses "transmitting an
`
`automatic acknowledgment of receipt to the sender PD A/cell phone" as claimed. For example,
`
`Kubala discloses that it was known to "generate return receipts to the sender when the sender's e(cid:173)
`
`mail message is received at its intended destination or when the recipient opens the e-mail message,
`
`thereby providing an acknowledgement that a particular message has been received and/or opened."
`
`(Kubala, i]6.)
`
`Second, Kubala discloses "triggers the forced message alert software application program to
`
`take control of the recipient PD A/cell phone" as claimed. For example, Kubala's Figure 2
`
`(reproduced below) illustrates an enhanced email application 208 that includes a mandatory(cid:173)
`
`response functional unit 212 on computing device 204. The combined enhanced email application
`
`208 and mandatory-response functional unit 212 read on the claimed "forced message alert software
`
`application program to take control of the recipient PD A/cell phone." Referring to Figure 2, Kubala
`
`- 71 -
`
`Page 1881
`
`

`

`explains that the mandatory-response functional unit 210 provides an email message 218 in
`response to an email message 214 with a mandatory-response flag 216. (Id, iJ35; see also id, iJiJ13,
`33, 36; see also Williams, i]i]219-222.)
`
`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`.FJ(J. 2
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 2.)
`
`Each of the embodiments that Kubala explicitly discloses and suggests "represent a different
`
`way of attempting to fulfill a request from the sender of the original message that the recipient
`
`should or must provide a reply message in response to the original message." (Kubala, iJ54.) In
`
`particular, Kubala discloses that "the user must reply to the received e-mail message in some
`
`manner before the e-mail application will allow the user to perform some other action." (Id, iJ53.)
`
`As the Board noted, these disclosures satisfy the "controlling" limitation. (Google, IPR2018-01079,
`
`FWD at 52-53 ("We note that a finding that Kubala teaches e-mail application 206 taking control of
`
`a PDA/cell phone would be further supported by Kubala's disclosure that 'the user must reply to the
`
`received e-mail in some manner before the e-mail application will allow the user to perform some
`
`other action."') (emphasis in original) (citing Kubala, iJ53); see also Williams, i]223.)
`
`Third, Kubala also discloses the claimed "show the content of the text message and a
`
`required response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone" as claimed. Kubala's Figure l lC
`
`(reproduced below) shows an example of displaying the content of a message and a menu 1120 of
`
`possible responses to a sender's message.
`
`- 72 -
`
`Page 1882
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`-tHZ
`E-mail app!kafaJn ~rnln~i
`TI'l-$ m-~-s.~• th.rt y()u are ~,rr~n'lly rovmwln~J $h-Ot..!l(t not ti~
`s:fos.oo until /-Oi-l re:ply m th~ n'--.~~$,:~, Chor1$~ ooia ~1f ttm
`,opfa)nt l'rom lh~ m~m.i to 9en-erore an INST ANT reply to this
`m~~ or s~ee-t 'CA!\'CEL• to c.loo~ wl#l.out s~'.dtng a r~i:1-
`
`@
`
`(Kubala, FIG. l lC.)
`
`Fourth, Kubala also discloses "to repeat audibly the content of the voice message on the
`
`speakers of the recipient PD A/cell phone and show the required response list on the display
`
`recipient PDA/cell phone" as claimed. Kubala explains that e-mail message 214 may be a text
`
`message, or a voicemail or audio message. (Kubala, iJ32.) And Kubala states that a data processing
`
`system such as a PDA can include an "audio output system." (Id, iJ29.) Kubala discloses that when
`
`a reply to an email message with an associated mandatory-response flag has not been made, the
`
`enhanced email application 208 loops back to alert the recipient via 1012, as illustrated in Figure 10
`
`(reproduced below). The looping back at 1012 has the effect ofresending the message to the user
`
`until the user replies to the received e-mail message as required. (See id, iJ53, FIG. 10; see
`
`Williams, i]i]223-226.)
`
`- 73 -
`
`Page 1883
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`{~"''M~~...._ ..... ,,)
`'""'""!""'""'
`
`.,_ ......................................................................................................................... , ...... ,,~
`
`r,
`
`'""""""""""""'"J '"""""""""'"""
`~
`~
`~
`~ft:~r~tNl ~":f:~~f~~1~ f ~~~:;t
`i
`~~~:~~ .. \~~~: *~ Z~¾\~ ~~~,~~~v
`~
`~
`i
`~
`~
`J~¼
`::.. ........................ ,,,, .................. , .... , ....................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...... ,,, ..
`~
`l
`~
`..................... , ..................................... ~ .................................................... '.\
`}
`I ! ~tt<:$:~~tn· :Str~~~r~~~~~-r~~~-
`t
`I !
`i~) t.~~ttt~~ ~h~%~- ~~~~~~-:._~~
`~
`I!
`~
`J®t
`I ).
`1.
`~
`........ ,,,,
`}
`I
`.................. ·--;_~::-.&~-~ ... ~-~~,,,,:
`""",. '*·•~ R~t~' M«tv'l.'>l<·'·••~•y ,,,,
`~
`,.........
`:-.; -~,::;~~&~:} ~,.,~
`,,,. ...... ~·''t~~; .. 1
`~
`l ~...._,, :-.
`C""""""L""""":;•',"·<::~~~::.:,:.,., ... ,., ... , , "· ~
`I ~-~~i
`~ 1-lfffr ~)~~~~N'r ~
`l
`!
`lt~~-
`~
`.
`t. ........................ l-........................... 3 .......... ~ ... : .... •.•:":"<-: ''~·":~~~:-:,.....,
`---·,"··,<t~~~::~~1%;:::~\t: ... --------·" I
`,.,.,,""" ¾\-~~-~- ~:.~ ..•. :,,
`,,,,,
`l.
`
`{'o.'.'.;:,,;._.,;....,~"\:N:...
`
`' ' " '
`
`~
`~
`~
`~
`
`{
`f~'f~-;
`~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""-''""""~
`'l t ·M-•'\-"t ,>\i'l"ll:::.,'\i-r,<:~ ~"-~rm, !
`r""""'"""'"""'* """"""""""""'\
`~~.-t._~~~;~r~:t .. ~~~--~r
`~
`1
`·'-~~
`· ................................................................................................................ }
`
`\ c ... ~'~"S-••·)
`
`(Kubala, FIG. 10.)
`
`Kubala therefore expressly teaches or suggests this limitation. (See Williams, i]227.)
`
`To the extent that it is argued that Kubala does not teach this limitation, Hammond's
`
`"system tracks whether each message has been delivered and reviewed by to [sic] each recipient,
`
`and uses the message information to resend the messages whose delivery or review is not
`
`confirmed." (Hammond, 2:47-50; see also id, Abstract, 2:1-8, 4:21-28, 5:5-6:20, 6:66-7:63, 10:48-
`
`63, FIGS. 2, 3A, 3B, 4, SA, SB.) As explained above (see claim [1.8] and Section IX.A 1), a POSA
`
`would have been motivated to combine Kubala and Hammond. (Williams, i]227.) Thus, Kubala and
`
`Hammond disclose this limitation.
`
`- 74 -
`
`Page 1884
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`[10.3] transmitting a selected required response from the response list in order to allow the
`
`message required response list to be cleared from the recipient's cell phone display,
`
`whether said selected response is a chosen option from the response list, causing the forced
`
`message alert software to re