`571-272-7822
`
`Paper8
`Entered: April 25, 2014
`
`.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`J
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVORM. JEFFERSON,
`BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, NEIL T. POWELL,
`and GREGG I. ANDERSON,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION.
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`37 CFR. $ 42.108
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On October 22, 2013, Apple Inc. (“Apple”or “Petitioner’’) filed a
`
`Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 2-14 and 16 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,010,536 (Ex. 1001, “the °536 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.””). On January
`
`29, 2014, Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (“Evolutionary Intelligence” or
`
`“Patent Owner’), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper6 (“Prelim. Resp.”’).
`
`Wehavejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an interpartes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`.
`
`THRESHOLD.—TheDirector maynot authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any responsefiled under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there
`is a reasonablelikelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`unpatentability of challenged claims 2-12, 14, and 16. Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes review of the ’536
`patent.
`|
`A, Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner states that on October 23, 2012 it was served with a
`complaint alleging infringementofthe ’536 patent in Civil Action No. 6:12-
`cv-00783-LEDin the District of Eastern District of Texas (Ex. 1007), which
`
`wastransferred to the Northern District of California as Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`3:13-cv-4201-WHA. The ’536 patentis also the subject of several other
`lawsuits against third parties. Pet. 2.'
`
`B. The ’536 Patent
`
`The *536 patent is directed to developing intelligence in a computer or
`digital network by creating and manipulatinginformation containers with
`dynamic interactive registers in a computer network. Ex. 1001; 1:11-20;
`3:1-5. The system includes an input device,an output device, a processor, a
`memory unit, a data storage device, and a means of communicating with
`
`other computers.
`
`/d. at 3:6-11. The memory unit includes an information
`
`container made interactive with, among other elements, dynamic registers, a
`
`search engine, gateways, a data collection and reporting means,an analysis
`
`engine, and an executing engine. /d. at 3:15-23.
`
`.
`
`The ’536 patent describes a container as an interactive nestable logical
`
`domain, including dynamic interactive evolving registers, which maintains a
`~ unique network-wide lifelong identity. Jd. at 3:29-35. A container, at
`
`minimum,includesa logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a
`
`register, and a gateway. Id. at 9:2-4. Registers determine the interaction of
`
`that container with other containers, system components, system gateways,
`
`events, and processes on the computer network. Jd. at 3:43-46. Container
`
`registers may be values alone or contain codeto establish certain parameters
`in interaction with other containers or gateways. Id. at 9:19-22. Gateways
`are structurally integrated into each containerorstrategically placed at
`
`' The Petition does not include page numbers. Wehaveassigned page
`numbers beginning with page:1 at heading I.A. and concluding with page 31 -
`at heading V. The assigned page numbers appearto correspond to page
`numbersin the Table of Contents. Patent Owner adopted the same
`convention. Prelim. Resp. 12 n.2.
`.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`containertransit points. Jd. at 4:54-57. Gateways govern the interaction of
`
`containers encapsulated within their domain by reading andstoringregister °
`information of containers entering and exiting that container. Jd. at 4:58-66;
`15:46-49.
`.
`
`The system for creating and manipulating information containersis
`
`set forth in Figure 2B as follows:
`
`Figure 2B illustrates a computer network showing nested containers,
`computerservers, and gatewaysat Site 1 through Site 7. Jd. at 10:59-62.
`
`AnyofSites 1 through 7 may interact dynamically within the system; for
`
`example, Site 1 shows a single workstation with a container and gateway
`connected to an Intranet. Jd. at 10:64-67. Site 2 shows a server with a
`gatewayin relationship to various containers. Jd. at 11:2-3. Site 3 shows an
`Internet web page with a containerresiding on it. /d. at 11:3-4. Site 4 shows
`
`a personal computer with containers and:a gateway connectedto the
`Internet. Id. at 11:4-6. Site 5 shows a configuration of multiple servers and
`
`containers on a Wide Area Network. Jd. at 11:6-7. Site 6 shows a work
`
`station with a gateway and containers within a container connected to a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`- Patent 7,010,536 BI
`Wide Area Network. Jd. at 11:7-9. Site 7 shows an independent gateway,
`capable ofacting as a data collection and data reporting site as it gathers data
`
`from the registers of transiting containers and as an agent of the execution
`
`engine as.it alters the registers of transient containers. Jd. at 11:8-13.
`An example of the configuration the containers may haveis provided
`in Figure 4 as follows:
`|
`
`Container Registers 101600 to 129000
`
`eo
`
`103000
`
`on
`
`405000
`
`-
`
`wm
`
`re
`
`412000
`
`se
`
`114000
`
`va
`
`ra
`
`
`
`09000 wvity|118000
`
`
`
`- 1
`
`-
`
`ret000
`
`tese00
`-
`oe [
`cs
`
`120
`
`ro
`
`reason
`
`raxeon
`[ey |
`Pa |
`__
`
`FIG. 4
`
`Figure 4 shows an example of container 100 that includes
`
`containerized elements 01, registers 120, and gateway 200. Jd. at 12:65-67.
`
`Registers 120 included in container 100 include, inter alia, active time
`
`register 102000, passive timeregister 103000,neutraltime register 104000,
`
`active space register 111000, passive space register 112000, neutral space
`
`register 113000, and acquire register 123000. Jd. at 14:31-39.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 2 and 16 are the two independentclaims challenged. Claim 2
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`2. An apparatus for transmitting, receiving and
`manipulating information on a computer system, the apparatus
`including a plurality of containers, each container being a
`logically defined data enclosure and comprising:
`
`an information element having information;
`
`a plurality of registers, the plurality of registers forming
`part of the container and including
`
`a first register for storing a unique container
`identification value,
`
`a secondregister having a representation
`designating space and governing interactions of the container
`with other containers, systems or processes accordingto utility
`of information in the information elementrelative to an
`external-to-the-apparatus three-dimensional space,
`
`an active space register for identifying space in
`which the container will act upon other containers, processes,
`systems or gateways,
`
`a passiveresister for identifying space inwhich the
`container can be acted upon by other containers, processes,
`systems or gateways,
`
`a neutral space register for identifying space in
`whichthe container may interact with other containers,
`processes, systems, or gateways; and
`
`.
`
`a gateway attached to and formingpart of the container,
`the gateway controlling the interaction of the container with
`other containers, systems or processes.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art reference Gibbs, U.S. Patent No.
`5,836,529, filed October 31, 1995 (Ex. 1006). Pet. 3.
`|
`E. The Alleged Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner alleges Gibbs anticipates claims 2-14 and 16 of the ’536
`
`patent and renders them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 3.
`II. ANALYSIS.
`|
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review,claim terms in an unexpired patentare
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification ofthe patent inwhich they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition
`
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, ©
`and precision. Renishaw PLCv. Marposs Societa’per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). If not, the terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by oneof ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the disclosure. Jn re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`I. “container”
`Independent claims 2 and 16 recite the term “container,” as do several
`ofthe dependentclaims, e.g., claims 5 and 7. As discussed above, the °536
`patent specification describes a container as an interactive nestable logical
`
`domain, including dynamic interactive evolving registers, which maintains a
`
`unique network-widelifelong identity. Ex. 1001, 3:29-35.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`Petitioner cites to the ’536 patent specification explaining that a
`
`“container”is “a logically defined data enclosure which encapsulates any
`element or digital segment (text, graphic,photograph, audio, video, or other),
`or set of digital segments, orreferring now to FIG. 3C, any system
`|
`componentor process, or other containers or sets of containers.” Pet. 5
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:2). Petitioner then argues that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a “container”is “a logically defined data
`
`structure that contains a wholeorpartial digital element(e.g., text, graphic,
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments, or any system
`componentorprocess, or other containers or sets of containers.” Pet. 6
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 {{] 54-55). Patent Owner proposesthat the broadest
`reasonable construction of “container”is “a logically defined data enclosure
`
`which encapsulates any elementor digital segment (text, graphic,
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital elements.” Prelim.
`Resp. 23.
`
`Patent Owner, however, argues that defining “container” as something
`that “contains,” as Petitioner proposesis circular and unhelpful. Prelim.
`Resp. 24. Further, Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proposed construction
`ignores the relationship between “containers” and “‘encapsulation.” Jd.
`
`Patent Owneralso argues “encapsulation,” reférs to “treat[ing] a collection
`ofstructured information as a whole without affecting or taking notice ofits
`internal structure” and“encapsulation”furtherrefers “to the process of
`wrapping data in protocols that allow its transmission from one network to
`another, as occurs when a web page is sent using HTML.” /d.at 24 (citing
`Ex. 2001).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`Weare notpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. The ’536 patent
`states that a container “at minimum includesin its constructionalogically
`encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a register anda gateway” and a
`container “at minimum encapsulates a single digital bit, a single natural
`numberor the logical description of another container, and at maximum all
`
`defined cyberspace, existing, growing and to be discovered, including but
`
`not limited to all containers, defined and to be defined in cyberspace.” Ex.
`1001, 9:2-9. The °536 patent does notlimit the terms “logically defined”or
`
`“encapsulated”to “structured information as a whole”regardless ofits
`
`internal structure or “wrapping data” in preparation for transmission. The
`claims also do not require such limitations. Accordingly, we do not agree
`with Patent Ownerthat“logically defined”or “encapsulated” require
`anything more than “contained within.”
`
`Accordingly, based on the proposed construction of “container” by
`
`both Petitioner and Patent Owner, and for the purposesof this decision, we
`
`construe “container” to mean “a logically defined data enclosure which
`
`encapsulates any elementor digital segment(text, graphic, photograph,
`
`audio, video, or other), or set of digital elements.”
`-
`2. “register”
`Independentclaims 2 and16 recite “a plurality ofregisters, the
`plurality of registers formingpart of the container.” Petitioner proposesthat
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “register” is “value or code
`
`? Related U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 B2,the patent at issue in IPR2014-
`00079 and IPR2014-00080,recites the terms “logically defined” and/or
`“encapsulated” in independent claims 1 and 19-23. Ourinterpretation of
`these termsis consistent with our analysis in IPR2014-00079 and IPR2014-
`00080.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`associated with a container” based on the context of “register” in the °536
`
`patent specification, where container registers “may be values alone or
`
`contain codeto establish certain parameters in interaction with other
`
`containers 100 or gateways 200.” Pet. 6-7 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:19-23).
`
`Patent Ownerargues that the term “register,” based on dictionary
`
`definitions, encompasses“a group of (usually) bistable devices that are used
`to store information within a computer system for high speed access”and “a
`memory location within a microprocessor, used to store values and external
`memory addresses while the microprocessor performslogical and arithmetic
`
`operations on them.” Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Exs. 2002, 2003). Based on
`
`these dictionary definitions, Patent Ownerproposesthat “register” means “a
`memory location within a computerthat stores data.” Jd. at 26. Patent
`
`Owneracknowledgesthat its proposed construction is similar to Petitioner’s
`
`construction, but argues that Petitioner’s construction is unreasonably broad
`andd may encompass unpatentable subject matter. Jd.
`Wedisagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree with
`Patent Ownerthat “register” must require ““a memory location within a
`
`computer.” The *536 patent specification and claims do not impose such a
`limit to the meaningof “register.” The ’536 patent broadly describes
`“container registers” as follows:
`Container registers 120 are interactive dynamic values
`appendedto the logical enclosure of an information container
`100, and serve to govern the interaction of that container 100
`with other containers 100, container gateways 200 andthe
`system 10, and to record the historical interaction of that
`container 100 on the system 10. Container registers 120 may
`be values alone or-contain code to establish certain parameters
`in interaction with other containers 100 or gateways 200.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`Ex, 1001, 9:14-23. We see no reason to limit the scope of “register” to
`include limitations neither described by the specification nor required by the ©
`
`claims. Therefore, we are persuadedby Petitioner’s argumentthat the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of“register,” as it is used in the °536 patent
`is “value or code associated with a container.”
`,
`|
`
`3. “active space register’’/“passive space register”’/
`“neutral spaceregister”
`99 6
`The terms“active space register,”
`“passive spaceregister,” and
`
`“neutral space register’ appear in independentclaim 2.
`
`Petitioner references Patent Owner’s infringement contentionsin the
`
`. copendinglitigation as subject matter for consideration, but argues that the
`
`words should be given their broadest reasonable construction. Pet. 9-10.
`
`Similarly, after noting that the terms are not defined expressly in the
`
`Specification of the ’536 patent, Patent Ownerstates only that the terms be
`construed in accordance with their plain meaning. Prelim. Resp. 30-31.
`The Specification of the 536 patent states, at several locations,that
`
`the registers are “dynamic”and “interactive.” See Ex. 1001, 7:25-30. As
`
`discussed above, registers are user-created and attach to a unique container.
`
`Id. at 14:23-26. Registers may be ofdifferent types, including pre-defined
`
`registers.
`
`/d. at 14:1-3. Pre-defined registers are immediately available for
`
`selection by the user, within a given container. Jd. at 14:3-6. Pre-defined
`registers may beactive, passive, or interactive and may evolve with system
`
`use. Id. at 14:29-30. In the context of predefined registers, “active space,”
`“passive space,” and “neutral space”are part of the system history. /d. at
`14:30-42, Fig. 4. The Specification does not describe further any of the
`
`terms.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`The claim 2 elements,“active space register,”
`
`99 66
`
`“passive space
`
`register,” and “neutral space register,” each expressly defines the function of
`
`the elementin claim 2.
`
`The “active space register”is:
`“for identifying space in which the container will act upon other
`containers, processes, systems or gateways. . .” (emphasis added).
`
`The “passive spaceregister”is:
`
`“for identifying space in which the container can be acted upon by
`other containers, processes, systems or gateways .. .” (emphasis
`added).
`
`The “neutral space register’is:
`
`“for identifying space in which the container may interact with other
`containers, processes, systems, or gateways.. .” (emphasis added).
`
`The term “register” has been construed to mean “value or code
`39 6
`associated with a container.” The modifiers “active,
`passive,” and
`
`“neutral” serve to distinguish the claimedregisters that are defined
`
`functionally in claim 2.
`
`4. | “acquire register”
`Petitioner does notinterpret “acquire register,” which appears in
`
`claims 8 and independentclaim 16. Patent Ownerproposesthe plain
`meaning ofthe term. Prelim. Resp. 31. The “acquire register [is] for
`controlling whether the container adds a register from other containers or
`
`adds a container from other containers when interacting with them.” Jd.
`
`The Specification describes the acquire register as “enabling the user to
`search and utilize other registers residing on the network.” Ex. 1001, 15:27-
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`. Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`29. This is consistent with the claim languageitself. No further
`
`interpretation is required.
`
`5. “gateway”
`Independentclaims 2 and 16 recite “a gateway attached to and
`
`formingpart of the container, the gatewaycontrolling the interaction of the
`container with other containers, systems or processes.” Petitioner argues
`
`that gateways “gather and store container register information according to
`
`system-defined, system-generated, or user determinedrules. .. governing
`how containers, system components and system processes interact with that
`
`unique gateway, including how data collection and reporting is managed at
`
`that gateway.” Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:58-66). Based onthis
`
`description from the ’536 patent, Petitioner proposes that “gateway” means
`
`“code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter
`
`registers associated with containers.” Jd. at 9.
`
`Patent Owner arguesthat a person with ordinary skill in the art would
`understandthat a “gateway” is “a devicethat interconnects two networks.”
`~ Prelin. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2002). Patent Ownerfurther arguesthatthis
`
`definition is consistent with the 536 patent claims, where claim | recites the
`“gateway controlling the interaction of the container with other containers,
`systemsor processes.” Jd. Patent Owneralso arguesthat this definition is
`consistent with the °536 patent specification, wherethe specification
`|
`describes that a “gateway”is a server,is structurally integrated into
`containers, and includes software to process network data. Id. at 27-28
`(citing Ex. 1001,° Fig. 2B; claims 1, 13; 4:54-55). Accordingly, Patent.
`Ownerproposesthat “gateway” should be construed as “a hardware device
`
`> Patent Owner mistakenly referes to “Ex. 1101.”
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`that facilitates the transfer of information between containers, systems
`and/or processes on twodifferent networks or devices, or software that
`processes network data.” Jd. at 28.
`Weare not persuaded by Patent Ownerthat “gateway” requires these
`additional limitations.
`Wedisagree with Patent Owner. The ’536 patent describes
`[g]ateways gather andstore container register information according
`to system-defined, system-generated, or user determined rules as
`containers exit and enter one another, governing how containers
`system processes or system componentsinteract within the domain of
`that container, or after exiting and entering that container, and
`governing how containers, system components and system processes
`interact with that unique gateway, including howdata collection and
`reporting is managedat that gateway.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:58-66. The ’536 patent further describes that gateways are
`described logically as being “nestable in a hierarchicalor set and class
`
`network scheme.” Jd. at 4:54-57. Thus, we do not agree with the Patent
`
`Ownerthat a“gateway”is limited to a hardware device. We further do not
`
`agree with Patent Ownerthat a “gateway”facilitates only the transfer of
`
`information on twodifferent networks or devices, because the’536 patent
`
`provides an example of a gateway governing the interaction of two
`containers regardless of whether the containers are on twodifferent
`networksor devices.
`|
`
`Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner and construe “gateway”to
`
`mean “hardware or software that facilitates the transfer of information
`
`between containers, systems, and/or processes.”
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`6. means elements
`Claims 9-12 each contain means plus function elements. Petitioner
`
`contendsthere is no disclosed structure in the form of a programmed
`
`instruction step, i.e., an algorithm, as required by Aristocrat Techs. Ausil.
`PTYLtd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Pet. 10-11. Thus, the claimsare invalid for “‘lack[ing] sufficient disclosure
`of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 | 6 and therefore indefinite under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 9 2.’).” Td. Our jurisdiction in interpartes review does not
`include groundsthat could be raised under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311(b). |
`
`Petitionerproposesthat, absent the required algorithm, the “means
`
`specified in each of claims 9 to 12 mustat least be a processor that performs
`
`the specified function for each means element whenthe claimsare
`
`considered using the broadest reasonable construction in view ofthe
`
`specification.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not expressa position. —
`
`For purposesofthis inter partes review, Aristocrat requires an
`
`algorithm for a means step. The °536 patent lacks an algorithm. Whatis
`described in the system of the ‘536 patentis “an input device, an output
`
`device, a processor, a memory unit, a data storage device, and a means of
`
`communicating with other computers, network of computers,or digital-
`
`based, supported or enhanced physical media formsor public or published
`media.” Ex. 1001, 3:5-10. The preceding are generic computer devices.
`Absent anydisclosed algorithm, the broadest reasonableinterpretation
`
`consistent with the specification is a processor that performsthe specified
`
`function for each means elementof claims 9-12.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`B. Anticipation ofClaims2-14 and 16 by Gibbs
`Petitioner contends that claims 2-14 and 16 of the °536 patent are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Gibbs. Pet. 12-31. To support this
`position, Petitioner cites the testimony ofHenry Houh (Exhibit 1003, “Houh
`Declaration”).
`
`For reasons discussed below,Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that claims 2-12, 14, and 16
`
`would be unpatentable as anticipated by Gibbs.
`
`Gibbs Overview
`Gibbs describes a system and processfor monitoring and managing -
`the operation of a railroad system. Ex. 1006, 3:65-4:10. Therailroad
`
`management system operates on a computer system and its components are
`
`connected via a network. Jd. at 5:12-14.
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 BI
`
`Figure 1 is an object based railroad transportation network management
`
`system. As shown in Figure 1, central computer 26 organizes andstores this
`
`railroad system information so that it can later retransmit the information in
`
`responseto a request from any node 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, or 34. Ex. 1001,
`5:28-31.
`|
`The system is object oriented and uses objects to represent important
`| aspects ofthe railroad system suchastrain object 72, locomotive object 74,
`crew object 78, car object 80, end-of-train object 82, and computerized train
`
`control object 89. Jd. at 7:5-8. A map object library contains map objects to
`
`generate a transportation network map object and to display and transmit
`information in responseto auser request. Id. at 8:53-63. A control
`
`managementobject allows the userto activate any object within the map
`object library. Id. at 8:20-31.
`|
`Eachobjectin the railroad management system hasat least four
`distinct types of data:
`locational attributes, labeling attributes, consist
`attributes, and timing attributes. /d. at 9:28-10:4, Fig. 7. These attributes
`
`can include information such as a uniqueID,the physical location of the
`
`object, and object specific data. Jd. at 10:46-51. Each object contains
`
`referencesto its associated data structure,i.e., the four data types described
`
`above, and program instructions. Jd. at 7:21-27.
`
`1. Claims 2-7 and 14
`Petitioner argues the objects used by Gibbs’ railroad management
`system are examplesoflogically defined data enclosures. The objects are,
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`therefore, the “containers” specified in the preamble of claim 2° of the 536
`
`patent. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 {J 107-111).
`Petitioner argues Gibbs discloses the claimed “information element
`
`. having information” because Gibbsdiscloses that each transport object
`
`contains a numberofsections that store variousattributes of the object,
`including “locationalattributes,” “labeling attributes,” “consist attributes,”
`and “timing attributes.” Pet. 13-14 (citing Ex. 1003, J] 75-76, 81-85, and
`
`112-114). Petitioner further contendsthat Gibbs discloses a “plurality of
`registers” because objects have different data fields representing different
`information aboutthe real world object to whichit refers. Jd. at 14.
`|
`Petitioner also contendsthe railroad management system of Gibbsalso —
`
`discloses the claimed “plurality of registers” because it includes a numberof
`libraries. /d. (citing Ex. 1003 {J 71, 82-85, 87, 115-117). Petitioner argues
`the “first register” of claim 1 is disclosed in Gibbs because objects in the
`
`-
`
`train management system of Gibbs have unique IDs which correspondto the
`object. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 9§ 82, 118-119).
`. Claim 2 recites a secondregister “having a representation designating
`
`space and governing interactions of the container with other containers,
`systems or processes accordingtoutility of information in the information
`
`elementrelative to an external-to-the-apparatus three-dimensional space.”
`
`The train objects of Gibbs contain in the locational attributes field “a
`
`geographic location, a division code and a nameofthe corridor”for the
`physical train with whichit is associated. Ex. 1006, 10:46-48. Additionally,
`data items from the transport objects generate or modify an appropriate map
`
`* The preamble forms an antecedentbasis for “containers”as used in the
`claims and will be given weight. See, Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`in responseto a user request received from the context menu object
`(“CMO”). Id. at 8:53-63. Petitioner specifically contends that the transport
`objects of Gibbs disclose the above secondregister limitation. Pet. 15.
`Petitioner argues that the railroad network and equipmentandfacilities are |
`outside the railroad management system. /d. Petitioner further argues a user
`can use the “context menu object” to interact with map andreport objects
`through inputs and setting parameters. /d. (citing Ex. 1003 { 88).
`
`Claim 2 additionally recites an “active space register,” which, among
`other things, “will act upon other containers, processes, systems or
`gateways.” Gibbs disclosesthat map objects obtain and retain data items
`from the transport objects. Ex. 1006, 8:53-64. Program instructions in the
`
`map object generate or modify an appropriate map in responseto a user
`
`request received from the CMO 90. Jd. The map andreport objects monitor
`
`a set of warningcriteria for the various transport objects, which are included
`
`in the selected maps and reports. /d. at 22:16-21. These warning criteria can
`
`either be user-defined or system-defined. Jd. Petitioner argues the
`
`preceding disclosures of Gibbs meetthe “‘active space register” limitation.
`
`Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 J§ 90-95, 103-106).
`
`Claim 2 further recites “a passive register for identifying space in
`
`which the container can be acted upon byother containers, processes,
`systems or gateways.” Gibbsdiscloses that a user can generate a map,
`which only contains part ofthe railroad network,1.e., limits the geographic
`boundaries by zoomingin and out on the map object. Ex. 1006, 12:61-
`13:12. More specifically, the transportation network map object prompts the
`
`user for a Zoom increment and the creation of a set of zoom boundaries. Jd.
`Apart from the foregoing, the train report object can be usedto display a
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 BI
`variety of information to the user, including a graphical output showing a
`train, the cars of that train, and the contents of each car. Jd. at 16:53-17:4.
`
`Gibbs also discloses allowing the user to generate a terminalstatus report,
`which includes, among other things, the numberoftrains in the arrival yard,
`
`as well as the numberoftrains in the departure yard. /d. at 18:9-18.
`Petitioner cites to the multiple disclosures above as each showing the
`
`claimed “passive space register.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 [] 93, 98-99).
`
`Claim 2 recites a “neutral space register for identifying space in which
`
`the container may interact with other containers, processes, systems, or
`
`gateways.” Gibbsdiscloses a train consist report. Ex. 1006, 16:53-17:4. To
`
`generate a train consist report a particular train is selected. /d. A train report
`
`object retrieves data from the train object and car object of the selectedtrain.
`Id. Thetrain report object allows the user to graphically see the positioning
`of the cars in the selected train. /d. Petitioner alleges the train object and
`car object therefore intersect in the report object. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 J
`98). In addition, Petitioner cites the disclosures related to the active and
`
`passive space registers, as meeting the neutral space register limitation.
`
`Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 §{{ 138-140). Dr. Houh concludes “the train object
`and the car objects intersect via the report object.” Ex. 1003 4 138.
`
`Claim 2 further recites a “gateway attached to and forming part of the
`container, the gateway controlling the interaction of thecontainer with other
`containers, systems or processes.” Petitioner contends each objectin the
`
`railroad management system of Gibbs has program instructions and routines
`
`that allow it to interact with other objects. Pet. 18. As an example,
`Petitioner notes that the transport object in Gibbs includes program
`instructions that comprise routines for retrieving data from the central
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`computer, through the network and a gateway. Jd. at 18-19 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`q{ 141-144); Ex. 1006, 7:27-36.
`
`Patent Ownercontendsthat the Petition does not identify an apparatus
`including a plurality of containers, each having the claimed “second
` _
`.
`register,” “passive space register,” and “neutral space register.” Prelim.
`Resp. 31. Patent Ownerasserts that the Petitioner identifies location-related
`
`functionalityin Gibbs, but fails to show, on an element-by-elementbasis,
`that Gibbs discloses the actual apparatus ofclaim 2. Jd. at 31-32. Patent
`Ownerdoes not argue specifically any of the other elements of claim 2.
`
`Weare persuaded that Petitioner has shownthatit is likely to prevail
`in demonstrating that claim 2 is anticipated by Gibbs. Gibbs’ overalltrain
`management system receives, transmits, and manipulates information, as per
`the limiting preamble of claim 2. Gibbs accomplishes this through object
`oriented programming, objects representing elements of the train system,
`
`l.e., trains and cars. Ex. 1006, 7:5-8. Gibbs’ disclosure of objects describes
`
`the claimed “container” based on our construction of “‘container,” as
`
`discussed above. Petitioner has shownthat the specific types of objects,
`pro