Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 6369
`Case 2:17-cv—00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 6369
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT F
`EXHIBIT F
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 6370
`
`Filed on behalf of Google LLC
`By:
`
`
`Jonathan Tuminaro, Reg. No. 61,327
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`
`Karen Wong-Chan, Reg. No. 69,235
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01079
`Patent 8,213,970
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,213,970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 6371
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’970 patent (Google 1001) ......................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`The concepts of the ’970 Patent were well known in the prior
`art ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the prosecution history ..................................................... 6
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Relevant law and person of ordinary skill in the art ............................. 8
`
`“data transmission means” ..................................................................10
`
`“means for attaching . . .” ....................................................................10
`
`“means for requiring . . .” ....................................................................10
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged . . .” ..................11
`
`“means for periodically resending . . .” ...............................................11
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have transmitted . . .” ..............................................12
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................................12
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3-9 are obvious over Kubala and
`Hammond—references that are prior art to the ’970 patent’s
`actual filing date (November 26, 2008). .............................................13
`
`1.
`
`Overview: Kubala discloses PDAs that send and receive
`mandatory-response messages, and Hammond tracks
`acknowledgements of and responses to such messages. .......... 18
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 6372
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Dependent claim 3 .................................................................... 40
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent claim 4 .................................................................... 40
`
`Dependent claim 5 .................................................................... 41
`
`Independent claim 6 .................................................................. 42
`
`Dependent claim 7 .................................................................... 47
`
`Dependent claim 8 .................................................................... 50
`
`Dependent claim 9 .................................................................... 50
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3-9 are obvious over Hammond in
`view of Johnson and Pepe—references that are prior art to the
`’970 patent’s earliest effective filing date (September 21, 2004). ......51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Overview: Hammond tracks acknowledgements of and
`responses to mandatory-response messages; Johnson
`prevents a user from closing a mandatory-response
`message that has not been responded to; and Pepe
`discloses PDAs that provide an on-screen menu of
`possible responses to an incoming message. ............................ 52
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................. 54
`
`Dependent claim 3 .................................................................... 66
`
`Dependent claim 4 .................................................................... 66
`
`Dependent claim 5 .................................................................... 67
`
`Independent claim 6 .................................................................. 68
`
`Dependent claim 7 .................................................................... 75
`
`Dependent claim 8 .................................................................... 76
`
`Dependent claim 9 .................................................................... 77
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1 and 3-9 are obvious over Hammond in
`view of Johnson, Pepe, and Banerjee. .................................................77
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 6373
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`VI. THIS PETITION CONTAINS NEW ARGUMENTS AND PRIOR
`ART NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE. .....................78
`
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................79
`
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................79
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................81
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6374
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`years of academic or industry experience in the same field. (See Williams, ¶¶29-
`
`30.)
`
`“data transmission means”
`
`B.
`The function of the “data transmission means” is to facilitate the
`
`transmission of electronic files between said PDA/cell phones in different
`
`locations. (See ’970 patent, 8:65-9:39 (claim 1).) The corresponding structure is a
`
`server that communicates according to either (i) WiFi, WiMax, or other peer-to-
`
`peer communications or (ii) SMS, TCP/IP, or other messaging protocol. (See id.,
`
`4:1-36; see also Williams, ¶33.)
`
`“means for attaching . . .”
`
`C.
`The recited function is to attach a forced-message alert software packet to a
`
`voice or text message creating a forced-message alert that is transmitted by a
`
`sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone. (See id., 8:65-9:39 (claim
`
`1).) The corresponding structure is a computer configured to perform a portion of
`
`the forced-message alert software-application program that allows a user to create
`
`a message, select recipients of that message, select a default or new response list to
`
`be sent with the message, and then send the message to the recipients. (See id.,
`
`7:43-63; FIG. 3A; see also Williams, ¶34.)
`
`“means for requiring . . .”
`
`D.
`The recited function is to require a required manual response from the
`
`response list by the recipient in order to clear the recipient’s response list from the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 6375
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`recipient’s cell phone display. (See id., 8:65-9:39 (claim 1).) The corresponding
`
`structure is the forced-message alert software-application program on the recipient
`
`PDA/cellular phone that causes the message and manual response list to be
`
`displayed on the screen of the recipient PDA/cellular phone and clears the forced
`
`alert text data when a response is selected from the manual-response list. (See id.,
`
`8:39-46, FIG. 4; see also Williams, ¶35.)
`
`E.
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged . . .”
`
`The recited function is to receive and display a listing of which recipient
`
`PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged the forced-message alert and
`
`which recipient PDA/cell phones have not automatically acknowledged the forced-
`
`message alert. (See id., 8:65-9:39 (claim 1).) The corresponding structure is forced-
`
`message alert software-application program on the sender’s PDA/cell phone that
`
`monitors for and receives electronic transmissions with acknowledgement receipts.
`
`(See id., 7:64-8:5, FIG. 3A, 3B; see also Williams, ¶36.)
`
`“means for periodically resending . . .”
`
`F.
`The recited function is periodically resending a forced-message alert to a
`
`recipient PDA/cell phone that has not automatically acknowledged the forced-
`
`message alert. (See id., 8:65-9:39 (claim 1).) The corresponding structure is the
`
`forced-message alert software-application program on the sender PDA/cell phone
`
`that will “periodically resend the forced message alert to the PC or PDA/cell phone
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 6376
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`that have [sic] not acknowledged receipt.” (Id., 8:6-9; see also id., FIG. 3A, 3B;
`
`see also Williams, ¶37.)
`
`G.
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have transmitted . . .”
`
`The recited function is receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`
`PDA/cell phones have transmitted a manual response to a forced-message alert and
`
`details the response from each recipient PDA/cell phone that responded. (See id.,
`
`8:65-9:39 (claim 1).) The corresponding structure is the forced-message alert
`
`software-application program on the sender’s PDA/cell phone that monitors for
`
`and receives electronic transmissions with manual responses and displays those
`
`responses on the sender’s PDA/cell phone. (See id., 8:9-15, FIG. 3A, 3B; see also
`
`Williams, ¶38.)
`
`V.
`
` IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Google requests inter partes review of claims 1 and 3-9 of the ’970 patent
`
`on three grounds:
`
`Ground ’970 Patent Claims Basis for Ground
`
`1 and 3-9
`
`1 and 3-9
`
`1 and 3-9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Kubala and Hammond
`
`Hammond, Johnson, and Pepe
`
`Hammond, Johnson, Pepe, and Banerjee
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 6377
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`user-specifiable or system-administrator-specifiable parameters in the
`sender's instance of the enhanced e-mail application.”
`
`(Id. (emphasis added); see also id., ¶¶0057, 0060.) Kubala’s disclosure of
`
`“configurable” menu items teaches or suggests the claimed “custom response list.”
`
`(See Williams, ¶¶132-133.)
`
`Independent claim 6
`
`6.
`Claim 6 is obvious in view of Kubala and Hammond.
`
`6. A method of sending a forced message alert to one or more recipient
`PDA/cell phones within a predetermined communication network, wherein
`the receipt and response to said forced message alert by each intended
`recipient PDA/cell phone is tracked, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`The combination of Kubala and Hammond discloses the preamble, to the
`
`extent it is limiting. As set forth above (supra claims [1.1], [1.3]), Kubala discloses
`
`a method for sending a forced-message alert to one or more recipient PDA/cell
`
`phones within a predetermined communication network. (See Kubala, ¶¶0026-
`
`0027, 0032, 0033, FIG. 1A; Williams, ¶135.) And as also set forth above (supra
`
`claim [1.7]), Hammond discloses the ability to track the receipt and response to
`
`forced-message alerts. (See Hammond, Abstract, 2:11-18, 3:1-4:28, 5:20-37, 10:6-
`
`22, 6:56-8:45, FIG. 2.)
`
`- 42 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 6378
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
` [6.1] accessing a forced message alert software application program on a
`sender PDA/cell phone;
`
`As set forth above (supra claim [1.4]), Kubala discloses an enhanced email
`
`application that reads on this limitation. (See Kubala, ¶¶0013, 0033-0036, FIG. 2;
`
`Williams, ¶136.)
`
` [6.2] creating the forced message alert on said sender PDA/cell phone by
`attaching a voice or text message to a forced message alert application
`software packet to said voice or text message;
`
`As set forth above (supra claim [1.5]), Kubala teaches or suggests creating
`
`the forced-message alert on said sender PDA/cell phone by attaching a voice or
`
`text message to a forced message alert application software packet to said voice or
`
`text message—as required by this limitation. (See Kubala, ¶¶0032-0036, 0037-
`
`0041, 0054-0061, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2-4; Williams, ¶137.)
`
` [6.3] designating one or more recipient PDA/cell phones in the
`communication network;
`
`As set forth above (supra claim [1.5]), Kubala teaches or suggests
`
`designating one or more recipient PDA/cell phones in the communication
`
`network—as required by this limitation. (See Kubala, ¶¶0032-0036, 0037-0044,
`
`0054-0061, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2-5; Williams, ¶138.)
`
`- 43 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 6379
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`[6.4] electronically transmitting the forced message alert to said recipient
`PDA/cell phones;
`
`As set forth above (supra claim [1.5]), Kubala teaches or suggests this claim
`
`feature. (See Kubala, ¶¶0032-0036, 0037-0044, 0054-0061, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2-5;
`
`Williams, ¶139.)
`
`[6.5] receiving automatic acknowledgements from the recipient PDA/cell
`phones that received the message and displaying a listing of which
`recipient PDA/cell phones have acknowledged receipt of the forced
`message alert and which recipient PDA/cell phones have not acknowledged
`receipt of the forced message alert;
`
`As set forth above (supra claims [1.5] and [1.7]), the combination of Kubala
`
`and Hammond teaches or suggests the features in this limitation. (See Kubala,
`
`¶¶0032-0036, 0037-0044, 0054-0061, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2-5; Hammond, Abstract,
`
`2:11-18, 3:1-4:28, 5:20-37, 10:6-22, 6:56-8:45, FIG. 2; Williams, ¶140.)
`
`[6.6] periodically resending the forced message alert to the recipient
`PDA/cell phones that have not acknowledged receipt;
`
`As set forth above (supra claim [1.8]), the combination of Kubala and
`
`Hammond teaches or suggests the features in this limitation. (See Kubala, ¶¶0033-
`
`0036, FIG. 2; Hammond, 2:47-50; see also id., Abstract, 2:1-8, 4:21-28, 5:5-6:19,
`
`6:66-7:63, 10:48-63, FIGS. 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, 5B; Williams, ¶141.)
`
`- 44 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 6380
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
` [6.7] receiving responses to the forced message alert from the recipient
`PDA/cell phones and displaying the response from each recipient PDA/cell
`phone; and
`
`Kubala discloses this limitation. For example, Kubala’s Figure 2
`
`(reproduced below) illustrates that a sending PDA (e.g., computing device 202)
`
`may receive an email message 218 from a recipient PDA (e.g., computing device
`
`204) in response to an email message 214 with a mandatory response flag 216.
`
`(See Kubala, ¶¶0033-0036; Williams, ¶142.)
`
`The received email would have been displayed on computing device 202. (See
`
`Williams, ¶143; Kubala, ¶¶0028-0036, 0041, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2.)
`
`
`
`- 45 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 6381
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`[6.8] providing a manual response list on the display of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone that can only be cleared by the recipient providing a
`required response from the list;
`
`As set forth above, Kubala teaches or suggests the features in this limitation.
`
`(See supra claims [1.5] and [1.6]; Kubala, ¶¶0009, 0033-0036, 0040, 0041, 0047,
`
`0054-0060, FIGS. 2, 8, 10, 11A, 11C; Williams, ¶144.)
`
`[6.9] clearing the recipient’s display screen or causing the repeating voice
`alert to cease upon recipient selecting a response from the response list
`required [sic] that can only be cleared by manually selecting and
`transmitting a response to the manual response list.
`
`Kubala teaches or suggests the features in this limitation. (See Kubala,
`
`¶¶0033-0036, 0049, 0053, 0054, 0057, FIGS. 2, 8, 10, 11C; Williams, ¶145.)
`
`Specifically, Kubala discloses that a user can select a response from a menu of
`
`responses. (See Kubala, ¶0057, FIG. 11C (reproduced below).)
`
`
`
`- 46 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 6382
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`
`After selecting a response from menu 1120, a user presses the “INSTANT” button
`
`1118, which closes window 1112, thus clearing the recipient’s cell-phone display
`
`and generating a reply message. (Id., ¶0057.) 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 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. (emphasis added).) Although the specific embodiment illustrated in Figure
`
`11C 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-mail message,
`
`and from exiting the e-mail application until the recipient has responded to the
`
`received email message.” (Id., ¶0009 (emphasis added).) Thus, Kubala teaches or
`
`suggests “selecting a response from the response list required [sic] that can only be
`
`cleared by manually selecting and transmitting a response to the manual response
`
`list,” as required by this claim. (See Williams, ¶¶146-147.)
`
`Dependent claim 7
`
`7.
`Dependent claim 7 depends from claim 6.
`
`- 47 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165-8 Filed 07/26/18 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 6383
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`Second, the prior art cited in Google’s petition was not cited, and is different
`
`from the prior art considered by the Examiner, during original prosecution of the
`
`’970 patent. So Google’s petition is also not redundant to the original examination
`
`for purposes § 325(d).
`
`VII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`Google is not aware of any secondary considerations that would overcome
`
`the showing of obviousness set forth herein. If the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response includes any evidence of secondary considerations, Google should be
`
`given an opportunity to file a reply.
`
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: The real parties in interest are Google LLC;
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd.; Huawei Device (Dongguan)
`
`Co., Ltd.; Huawei Technologies USA Inc.; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.; and
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`RELATED MATTERS:
`
`The ’970 patent has been asserted in the five currently pending district court
`
`cases in the Eastern District of Texas:
`
`• AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., TXED-2-
`
`17-cv-00513, filed June 21, 2017;
`
`- 79 -
`
`