Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`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
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
