Trials@uspto.gov
`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 ©
`
`
`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]
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
