`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: April 25, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.
`Petitioner
`
`Vv.
`
`EVOLUTIONARYINTELLIGENCE,LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVORM.JEFFERSON,
`BRIAN J. MCNAMARA,NEIL T. POWELL,
`and GREGG I. ANDERSON,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108 ©
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On October 22, 2013, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner’’) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1 and 3-15 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,010,536 (Ex. 1001 (“the ’536 patent”)).’ Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On January 29,
`2014, Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`|
`THRESHOLD.—TheDirector maynotauthorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311.and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.
`
`Uponconsideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish
`that there is a reasonable likelihoodthat Petitioner would prevail in showing
`unpatentability of any challenged claim. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314, we do notinstitute an inter partes review for claims 1 and 3-15 of the
`
`’536 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Weare informed Petitioner was served on October 23, 2012, with a
`- complaint alleging infringement ofthe ’536 patent in Civil Action No. 6:12-
`cv-00783-LEDin the Eastern District of Texas, which was transferred to the -
`
`' The Petition includes headers on pagesi and 12 stating that claims 1 and 3-
`16 are obvious overthe cited references, but the Petition contains no
`substantive discussion of claim 16.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`Northern District of California as Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-4201-WHA.
`
`Pet. 1. The ’536 patentis also the subject of several other lawsuits against
`third parties. /d. at 2.
`
`B. The ’536 Patent
`
`The 536 patent is directed to developing intelligence in a computer or
`
`digital network by creating and manipulating information 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, dynamicregisters, a
`search engine, gateways, data collection and reporting means, an analysis
`engine, and an executing engine. Id. 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-widelifelong identity. Jd. at 3:29-35. A container, at
`
`minimum, includesa logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace,a
`register, and a gateway. /d. at 9:2-4. Registers determine the interaction of
`a container with other containers, system components, system gateways,
`events and processes on the computer network.
`/d. at 3:43-46, Container
`
`registers may be values, alone, or may contain codeto establish certain
`parametersin interaction with other containers or gateways. Jd. at 9:19-22.
`
`Gatewaysare structurally integrated into each containerorstrategically
`
`placed at containertransit points. Jd. at 4:54-57. Gateways govern the
`
`interaction of containers encapsulated within their domain by reading and
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`storing register information for containers entering and exiting that
`
`container. Id. at 4:57-66; 15:46-49.
`
`The system for creating and manipulating information containersis
`
`set forth in Figure 2B, which is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 2B illustrates a computer network showing nested containers,
`computer servers, and gateways, at Site 1 through Site 7. Ex. 1001, 10:59-
`62. AnyofSites 1 through 7 mayinteract dynamically within the system.
`Id. at 10:64-66. For example,Site 1 shows a single workstation with a
`container and gateway connected to an Intranet. Jd.at 10:66-67. Site 2
`showsa server with a gateway in relationship to various containers. Id. at
`11:2-3. Site 3 shows an Internet web page with a containerresiding onit.
`
`Id. at 11:3-4. Site 4 shows a personal computer with containers and a
`
`gateway connectedto the Internet. Jd. at 11:4-6: Site 5 shows a
`
`configuration of multiple servers and containers on a Wide Area Network.
`Id. at 11:6-7. Site 6 shows a workstation with a gateway and containers
`within a container connected to a Wide Area Network.
`/d. at 11:7-9. Site 7
`
`shows an independent gateway, capable of acting as a data collection and
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`data reportingsite as it gathers data from the registers of transiting
`
`containers, and as an agent of the execution engineasit alters the registers of
`
`transient containers.
`
`/d. at 11:8-13.
`
`An example of a configuration the containers may haveis provided in
`
`Figure 4, included below:
`
`Container Registers 161000 to 129000
`
`100
`
`©
`
`FIG. 4
`
`Figure 4 shows container 100, which includes containerized elements
`01, registers 120, and gateway 200. Ex. 1001, 12:65-67. Registers 120
`included in container 100 include, among others, active time register
`
`102000, passive time register 103000, neutral time register 104000, active
`
`space register 111000, passive space register 112000, neutral space register
`
`113000, and acquire register 123000. Jd. at 14:31-39.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`|
`Claims 1 and 15 are the challenged independent claims. Claim 1 is
`
`reproducedbelow:
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`1. 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 second register having a representation designating
`time and governinginteractions of the container with other
`containers, systemsor processes accordingto utility of
`information in the information elementrelative to an external-
`to-the-apparatus event time,
`
`an active timeregister for identifying timesat
`whichthe container will act upon other containers, processes,
`systems or gateways,
`
`a passive time register for identifying times at
`whichthe container can be acted uponbyother containers,
`processes, systems or gateways, and
`
`a neutraltime register foridentifying times at
`which the container may interact with other containers,
`-
`processes, systems or gateways; and
`
`a gateway attached to and forming part of the container,
`the gateway controlling the interaction of the container with
`other containers, systems or processes.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scully
`
`US 4,866,611
`
`US 4,819,191
`
`
`
`Jan. 29, 1987
`
`Jan. 29, 1987
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`E.
`
`The Alleged Ground of Unpatentability’
`
`Petitioner alleges the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`‘fe So
`1 and 3-15
`
`2
`Ls
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Cree and Scully
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim termsin an unexpired patent are
`interpretedaccording to their broadest reasonable constructionin light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim 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. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2007). A claim term will not be given its ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`* Page 3 ofthe Petition states that “[c]laims1, 3-15 of the °536 patent are
`unpatentable as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) & (e), and/or for
`being obvious overthe prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” No other portion of
`the Petition mentions or discusses anticipation of the challenged claims.
`See, e.g., Pet. 12-36. Accordingly, we treat the Petition as challenging the
`claims only under § 103.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B}
`
`however, when an inventoracts as his or her own lexicographer, defining the
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`1. “container”
`
`Independentclaims | and 15 recite the term “container.” Ex. 1001,
`
`30:8-30, 32:1-22. As discussed above,the ’536 patent specification
`
`describes a containeras an interactive nestable logical domain, including
`dynamicinteractive evolving registers, which maintains a unique network-
`wide lifelong identity. /d. at-3:29-35. Petitioner argues that the ’536 patent
`
`specification further defines container as “a logically defined data enclosure
`
`which encapsulates any elementor digital segment(text, graphic,
`
`photograph, audio, video, or other), or set of digital segments,or referring
`
`now to FIG. 3C, any system componentorprocess, or other containers or
`
`sets of containers.” Pet. 5 (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:64-9:2). Petitioner argues
`
`that the broadest reasonable construction of “container”in light of the
`specification “encompassesa 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 componentor process, or
`
`other containers or set of containers.” Pet. 6.
`
`Patent Ownerrelies on the sameportion of the ’536 patent
`
`specification as does Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:64-
`
`9:2), Patent Ownerproposesthat “container” be interpreted as “a logically
`
`defined data enclosure which encapsulates any elementor digital segment
`
`(text, graphic, photograph, audio, video, or other), or set ofdigital
`elements.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`Patent Owner acknowledgesthat the parties’ proposed constructions
`
`differ in that Petitioner inserts the term “contain” for encapsulate. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 21. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is narrower because of
`Patent Owner’s narrowinterpretation ofthe terms “logically defined” and
`“encapsulated.” Jd. at 21-22. Patent Ownerarguesthat “encapsulation”
`
`refers to “treat[ing] a collection of structured information as a whole without
`affecting or taking notice ofits internal structure” and furtherrefers “‘to the
`
`process of wrapping data in protocols that allow its transmission from one
`
`network to another, as occurs when a webpage is sent using HTML.” /d. at
`21 (citing Ex. 2001).
`Weare not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions. The ’536
`
`patent states that “[a] ¢ontainer 100 at minimum includesin its construction
`a logically encapsulated portion of cyberspace, a register and a gateway”and
`“Taj 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 patentalso states that “container
`100 contains the code to enableit to interact with the components
`
`enumerated in 2A, and to reconstructitself internally and manageitself on
`
`the network 201.” Jd. at 9:9-12. The ’536 patent does not describe the terms
`“logically defined”or “encapsulated” as limited to the “structured
`
`information as a whole”regardless ofits internal structure or “wrapping
`
`data” in preparation for transmission. The claims do not require such
`
`_ limitations. Therefore, we do not agree with Patent Ownerthat “logically
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`defined” or “encapsulated” requires anything more than simply “contained
`within.”
`
`Accordingly, based on the proposed construction of “container” by
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, and for 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”
`
`Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“register,” as recitedin the claims, “would encompassa value or code
`
`associated with a container.” Pet. 7. Petitioner’s construction relies on the
`
`°536 patent specification and the Declaration of Henry Houh (Ex. 1003, “the
`
`Houh Declaration”)). Pet. 6-7 (citing Ex. 1001; 9:19-23, Ex. 1003 {§ 52-
`55).
`/
`|
`Patent Ownercontendsthat “register” is a “common computing term
`
`referring to computer memory, often programmed with a specific value.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Ownercites two dictionaries in support of a
`contention that the plain meaning ofthe claim term “register” is “a memory
`
`location within a computer that stores data.” Jd. at 22-23 (citing Exs. 2002,
`2003). Patent Owneralso contendsthat the discussion in the’536 patent
`specification of “dynamic registers” as part of containers comports with this
`proposed construction. Jd. at 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:66—3:5; 3:14-15, 29-32).
`
`* 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 terms is consistent with our analysis in IPR2014-00079 and IPR2014-
`00080.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`'
`
`,
`
`The ’536 patent specification, including the claims, does not use
`
`“register” in the limited sense proposed by Patent Owner. The °536 patent
`
`describes “container registers” as
`
`interactive dynamic values
`are
`120
`registers
`Container
`enclosure of
`an_
`information
`logical
`to
`the
`appended
`container 100, and serve to govern the interaction of that
`container
`100 with
`other
`containers
`100,
`container
`gateways 200 and the 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:14-23. Thus, we are not persuaded that “register” is limited to
`
`“a memory location within a computer,” as Patent Owner contends. Weare
`
`persuadedby Petitioner’s argumentthat the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “register” is a “value or code associated with a container.”
`
`3. “gateway”
`Petitioner contendsthat the ’536 patent does not expressly define
`“gateway” as a standalone term butrefersto it as an interface between
`processes, system components and a data files, such as containers or
`
`registers. Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:58-66). Petitioner argues that
`container gateways are defined expressly as “logically defined gateways
`residing both on containers 100 and independently in the system 10.” Pet. 8
`
`(quoting Ex. 1001, 9:23-28). Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “gateway”“would encompasscode that governsinteractions
`
`between containers and that can alter registers associated with containers.”
`
`_
`Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 § 56-58).
`Patent Ownercites a computing dictionary in support of an assertion
`
`that the term “gateway” has a commonly understood meaningas “a device
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`that interconnects two networks.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owneralso
`
`contendsthat the ’536 patent refers also to “gateways” as embodied in
`
`software. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1001, claim 13). Thus, Patent Owner
`proposes that the correct construction of “gateway”is “a hardware device
`‘that facilitates the transfer of information.between containers, systems
`
`and/or processes on twodifferent networks or devices, or software that
`
`processes networkdata.” Id.
`
`The ’536 patentstates that “unique gateways”are “structurally
`integrated into each container, or strategically placed within a network at
`containertransit points” (Ex. 1001, 4:54-56), such that these
`|
`
`information
`register
`[g]ateways gather and store container
`according to
`system-defined,
`system-generated,
`or user
`determined rules as containers exit and enter one another,
`governing how containers
`system processes
`or
`system
`components interact 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 how data collection and
`reporting is managedat that gateway.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:58-66. Gateways are described as being “nestable in a
`hierarchical or set and class network scheme.” Jd. at 4:56-57. Accordingly,
`wedo not agree that, as used in the ’536 patent, gateways are limited to
`
`“hardware devices” for communicating across two different networks, or
`
`limited to software that processes network data. Prelim. Resp. 25. Indeed,
`in the ’536 patent, gateways may be integrated into each container, whichis
`logically defined. Ex. 1001, 4:54-57.
`
`Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s construction, which
`focuses on the gateway onlyasit relates to containers andregisters. Indeed,
`the ’536 patent describes gatewaysas entities of an information container
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`system in Figure 3C (Ex. 1001, 12:28-58), and as part of a conventional
`computer network shownin Figure 2B (Ex 1001, 10:59-11:13).
`
`Basedon the record before us, the broadest reasonable construction of
`“gateway”is hardware or software that facilitates the transfer of information
`between containers, systems and/or processes.
`
`1. Cree Overview
`
`Cree discloses an electronic calendaring method in a data processing
`
`system. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Abstract. Cree’s method involves a calendar
`
`ownerusing and modifying a portable copy of the user’s calendar when the
`user does not have access to a master copy of the calendar, such as when the
`
`user is traveling. Jd. Cree’s methodallowsthe userto reconcile
`automatically the portable and master copies ofthe calendar upon return
`from a trip. /d.
`
`
`
`' Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`An example ofa process of reconciling the two calendarsis illustrated
`
`COMPARE ENTRY DSTAILS- TES FOR LATER|TO
`
`IS THERE A CONFLICT?
`
`in Figure 5, reproduced below:
`TT FLAG ENTRY FOR
`
`LATER PRESENTATION|' L
`
`FIG. 5
`
`Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrating a method of reconciling two
`calendars. See Ex. 1006, 6:40-41, 30:61-64. As part of its method, Cree
`discloses storing various data elements in certain data structures, including a
`“calendar data (CAD)structure field (SF),” a “meeting (MTG)structure,” a
`“nameslist (NML) data structure,”a “trigger (TGR) structure,” and various
`other data structures. See e.g., Ex. 1006, 10:17-12:67.
`
`To reconcile entries on the two copies of the calendar, Cree’s system
`
`identifies old calendar entries and new calendar entries based on time stamps
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`stored inthe entries. Jd. at 5:1-14. The system takes someaction with each
`
`corresponding pair of old entries on the two calendars. If an old entry has
`been deleted from the portable copy ofthe calendar, the system deletes the
`
`corresponding old entry from the master copy of the calendar. /d. at 5:11-
`
`14. If an old entry has been deleted from the master copy ofthe calendar,
`the system ignores the old entry on the portable copy. Jd. at 5:15-21. If one
`or both of a pair of old entries on the two calendars have been modified, the
`system transfers the later-modified entry from one calendarto the other,
`combinesdata from the old entries, or flags the calendarentries for
`presentation to the user. /d. at 5:26-54. New entries on the portable copy
`are transferred to the master copy. Id. at 58-60.
`2. Scully Overview
`Scully discloses an electronic calendaring method in a data processing
`
`system. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, Abstract. Scully facilitates the use of reminder
`alarms associated with calendar events. Jd. Scully discloses implementing
`the reminderalarmswith a trigger that “float[s]” with an associated event, so
`that multiple users can employ a reminder alarm automatically. Jd.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`An example of a processofdistributing triggers is illustrated in Figure
`
`4of Scully, reproduced below:
`
`SYSTEM 1 (LOCAL)
`
`CALENDAR PROCESS
`a WIte
`COMMUNICATIONS
`
`be
`
`Av
`
`FIGA
`
`Figure 4 of Scully is a flowchart illustrating a processof distributing
`
`triggers to users. Ex. 1007, 5:35-37, 25:38-43. As part of its method, Scully
`
`discloses storing various data elements in certain data structures, including a
`“calendar data (CAD) structurefield (SF),” a “meeting (MTG)structure,” a
`“nameslist (NML) data structure,” a “trigger(TGR)structure,” and various
`other data structures. See e.g., Ex. 1007, 9:4-14:67.
`
`3. Claims 1 and 3-14
`
`Claim 1 recites “a plurality of containers, each container.. .
`
`
`
`comprising: an information element... ; a plurality of registers, . . .
`
`includinga first register ..., a second register... , an active time
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`register... , a passive time register ... , a neutral time register... ; anda-
`gateway.” Ex. 1001, 30:8-29 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Cree and Scully showsthese
`
`limitations. Pet. 12-20. Noting that Cree and Scully disclose “various data
`
`structures,” Petitioner argues that Cree and Scully disclose a plurality of .
`
`containers. /d. at 13-14. Petitioner identifies various data elements
`
`- disclosed by Cree and Scully as allegedly constituting the information
`element, the various registers, and the gateway recited in claim 1. See id. at
`
`14-20. For example, Petitioner asserts that, in Cree’s and Scully’s
`
`disclosures, “the trigger” constitutes many of the registers and the gateway
`recited in claim 1. See id. at 15-20.
`Weagree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not identify any
`specific one of the various data structures in Cree and Scully that includes
`
`each of the various data elements alleged to constitute the claimed
`
`information element, various registers, and the gateway. Prelim. Resp. 12,
`29. The Petition mentionsvarious data structures and thenstates that “[t]he
`combination of [Cree and Scully] therefore shows ‘[a]n apparatus .. .
`including a plurality of containers.’” Pet. 13-14. When addressing the
`
`»
`
`- claimed information element, registers, and gateway, the Petition does not
`
`identify consistently any one data structure as a container that includes each
`
`of these elements. Instead, the Petition variously refers to a “calendar event”
`
`(id. at 14-15, 17-18), a “calendar entry”(id. at 14, 16-18), a “calendar data
`
`structure (CAD)”(id. at 14), a “calendar event data structure”(id. at 15),
`
`“data structures” (id. at 14-18), and a “calendar data structure, including the
`
`meeting data structure and the trigger data structure” (id. at 16) as
`
`purportedly including various ofthe registers recited in claim 1. Claim 1
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`recites each container comprising an information element,the recited
`
`registers, and a gateway. The Petition provides noclear indication of one
`specific containerthat includes each of the subsequent elementsofthe claim.
`
`For example, the Petition does not identify clearly one data structure
`
`that containsall three of the “first register,” the “active register,” and the
`
`“gateway”recited in claim 1. The Petition argues that each “calendar event”
`ofthe cited references includesthe “first register.” Id. at 14-15. The
`Petition appears to suggest that “the trigger” of Cree and Scully constitutes
`the claimed “active register” and “gateway.” See id. at 15-16, 19-20.
`
`These contentions do not identify any specific container that includes
`_ the “first register,” the “active register,” and the “gateway” because
`Petitioner does not demonstrate that “the trigger” is included in the same
`container as the “calendar event” in Cree and Scully. In discussing the
`
`“trigger” that allegedly constitutes the “active time register” and the
`
`“gateway,” the Petition cites paragraphs 79-83, 93-99, 101-107, 115-123, .
`162, and 172 of the Houh Declaration. Pet. 15-16, 19-20. Paragraphs 79-82
`
`fall within the section of the Houh Declarationtitled “calendar event
`
`_
`
`triggers.” Ex. 1003 4] 78-83.
`
`The evidence cited in this section suggests that “triggers” are separate
`from “calendar events” in the cited art. For example, paragraph 79 ofthe
`Houh Declaration quotes Scully as disclosing, inter alia, that “[t]he official
`
`ID ofthe eventthat is to be triggered is included in the Trigger data
`
`structure,” such that “[t]he method allows the Trigger to ‘float’ with the
`- identified event.” Ex. 1007, Abstract (emphasis added). Similarly,
`paragraph 82 of the Houh Declaration quotes Scully as disclosing that “[t]he
`Trigger which wasestablished by the caller of the Meeting is also sent to the
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`-
`
`meeting invitees along with the meeting notice.” Jd. at 25:27-29. These
`disclosures suggestthat a “trigger” accompanies a “calendar event,”rather
`
`than being includedin the “calendar event.” And the other cited paragraphs
`of the Houh Declaration do notestablish otherwise.
`
`In sum, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive showing that
`identifies any one data structure or other data enclosure of Cree or Scully as
`a containerthat includes the information element,all of the registers, and the
`
`gateway, muchless demonstrate that Cree or Scully includesa plurality of
`
`such containers. Petitioner does not provide any other reason to conclude
`that it would have been obvious in view of Cree and Scully to configure an
`apparatus with a plurality of containers that each includes the information
`
`element, all of the registers, and the gateway recited in claim 1. Thus,
`Pétitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the
`
`challenge of claim 1 as obvious in view of Cree and Scully.
`. Claims 3-14 depend fromindependent claim 1 and necessarily include
`the limitations of claim 1. Petitioner’s arguments regarding dependent
`claims 3-14 address the specific limitations added by these claims and do not
`
`cure the deficiencies in the arguments regarding independent claim 1. See
`
`Pet. 20-35. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above in connection with
`
`claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in
`
`the challenge of claims 3-14.
`
`4. Claim 15
`
`Independent claim 15 recites a plurality of containers that each
`
`comprise the same information element, many of the sameregisters, and the
`
`same gateway that claim 1 recites. Ex. 1001, 31:46-32:21; see also id. at
`30:7-30. Petitioner addressesthe limitations of claim 15 that are commonto
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`claim 1 by referring to the arguments advancedregarding claim 1. Pet. 34-
`
`35. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1,
`Petitioner has not showna reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in the
`challenge of claim 15 as obvious over Cree and Scully.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1 and 3-15 of the
`536 patent.
`|
`
`For the reasonsgiven, it is hereby
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat the Petition is denied as to claims | and 3-15 ofthe
`
`°536 patent.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00083
`Patent 7,010,536 Bl
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Sidley Austin LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:.
`
`Anthony J. Patek
`Todd Kennedy
`Gutride Safier LLP
`anthony@gutridesafier.com
`todd@gutridesafier.com
`
`2]
`
`