Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 24726
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 24726
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 24726
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 24727
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 24727
`
`Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.
`
`alleged Patent Owner
`
`Patent 6,323,853
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PAR TES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311—319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148048
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 24728
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 24728
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ I
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................ III
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ................................................. 1
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL—PARTY—IN—INTEREST .......................................... 1
`
`NOTICE OF RELATEDMATTERSl
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATIONI
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................ 2
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................ 2
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................. 2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Declaration of Dennis Allison ............................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 3
`
`1. Overview of the '853 Patent................................................................ 3
`
`11.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE ............. 5
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES ......... 8
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS ..................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1, 9, 11, 23-29, and 38-46 — "input device" .......................... 13
`
`Claims 15 and 16 — "perform[ing] the steps recited in one of claims
`1-14" 13
`
`Claims 6, 12 and 47-56 — "first information includes an identification
`of a list of addressees" ......................................................................... 13
`
`i
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148049
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 24729
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 24729
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`
`UNPATENTABILITY........................................................................................... 14
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1—9, 11, 13—29, 38-45, 57—64, 66, 68—75, 77 and 79 are
`invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goodhand ................. 14
`
`Ground 2. Claims 6, 10, 12, 21, 27, 30—37, 42, 46—56, 61,, 65, 67, 72, 76
`
`and 78 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
`Goodhand and Padwick....................................................................... 37
`
`REASONS TO COMBINE GOODHAND AND PADWICK............................ 38
`
`Ground 3. Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 13-17, 22-23, 28-30, 35-38, 43-46, 57, 62-66,
`
`68, 73—77, and 79 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(6) over
`Allen. ................................................................................................... 44
`
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 58
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 59
`
`ii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148050
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 24730
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 24730
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,323,853 ("the '853 patent")
`1001
`
`
`Declaration of Dennis Allison
`1002
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,923,848 ("Goodhand")
`1003
`
`
`1004
`
`Padwick, et al, "Using Microsoft Outlook 97 " (Microsoft Press)
`
`1996 (Chapters 1, 8—9, 12—13, 19—20, 22, 24 only)
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,026,410 ("Allen")
`1005
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,644,735 ("Luciw")
`1006
`
`
`1007
`
`Bonura and Miller, "Drop Zones An Extension to LiveDocs",
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIGCHI Bulletin Volume 30, Number 2 April 1998.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dennis Allison
`1008
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,754,306 ("Taylor")
`1009
`
`
`US. Patent No. 5,790,532 ("Sharma")
`1010
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,859,636 ("Pandit")
`1011
`
`
`1012
`
`Magnanelli, et al., "ACADEMIA: An Agent—Maintained
`
`Database based on Information Extraction from Web
`
`Documents", 14th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems
`
`Research on April 15, 1998.
`
`
`http : //WWW. loc . gov/marc/lccn_structure . htrnl
`
`1013
`
`Structure of the LC Control Number,
`
`1014
`
`Preliminary Infringement Analysis for Defendant Google, US.
`
`Pat. No. 7,496,854 (highlighting added)
`
`
`iii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148051
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 24731
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 24731
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Motorola Mobility LLC and Google Inc.:
`
`Lead Counsel: Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003); Tel: 650.265.6109
`
`Backup Counsel: Zhuanjia Gu (Reg. No. 51,758); Tel: 650.529.4752
`
`Address: Turner Boyd LLP, 702 Marshall St, Ste. 640
`
`Redwood City, CA 94063. FAX: 650.521.5931.
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN—INTEREST
`
`The real—parties—in—interest for this Petition are Google Inc. for Petitioner
`
`Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC for Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`US. Patent No. 6,323,853 ("the '853 patent") at issue has been asserted in the
`
`US. District Court for the District of Delaware in the following cases:
`
`1—12—cv—
`
`01601, 1-12-cv-01602, 1-12-cv-01599, 1-12-cv-01598, and 1-12-cv-01595, all
`
`filed on Nov. 29, 2012, and 1-13-cv-00919 and 1-13-cv-00920, filed May 22,
`
`2013. The patent was previously asserted in the US. District Court for the District
`
`of Rhode Island in case no. CA No. 02—343—T, filed on July 31, 2002.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above. Petitioners also consent to electronic service by email at the following
`
`addresses: sniith@turnerboyd.com, docketing@turnerboyd.com,
`
`gu@turnerboyd.com, kent@turnerboyd.corn, turner@turnerboyd.con1.
`
`l
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148052
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 24732
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 24732
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is available
`
`for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REg QUESTED
`
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1—79 of US. Patent No.
`
`6,323,853 ("the '853 patent") (Ex. 1001) be canceled based on the following
`
`grounds of unpatentability, explained in detail in the next section:
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1,—9, 11, 13-29, 38—45, 57—64, 66, 68—75, 77 and 79 are
`
`invalid under 35 USC § 103 as obvious over Goodhand.
`
`Ground 2. Claims 6, 10, 12, 21, 27, 30-37, 42, 46-56, 61, 65, 67, 72, 76 and 78
`
`are invalid under 35 USC. § 103 as obvious over Goodhand and Padwick.
`
`Ground 3. Claims 1, 2, 7—1 1, 13—17, 22-23, 28—30, 35-38, 43—46, 57, 62—66, 68,
`
`73—77, and 79 are invalid under 35 USC. § 102(e) over Allen.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This petition presents "a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition". 35 USC
`
`§ 314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148053
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 24733
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 24733
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Declaration of Dennis Allison
`
`The declaration of Dennis Allison is attached as Exhibit 1002.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the '853 Patent
`
`The disclosure ofthe '853 patent relates to the computerized handling of contact
`
`information. Contact information is information that is related to a person—such
`
`as the person's name, telephone number, postal address, email address, etc. EX.
`
`1002 at {l 46.
`
`The '853 patent "handles" such contact information with a system that facilitates
`
`interaction between programs that use text documents (like word processors) and
`
`databases of contact information. EX. 1002 at ll 46. Such databases can be called
`
`"contact databases" or "address books". EX. 1002 at 11 46. These databases can
`
`contain information relating to people, such as their names, telephone numbers,
`
`email addresses, postal addresses, and notes relating to the person. Id.
`
`The interaction between programs like word processors and contact databases
`
`can be illustrated with reference to Figures 3 and 4 ofthe '853 patent. These
`
`figures depict screens that a person might see when using a word processing
`
`program. Id. The relevant portions of the figures are shown side-by-side here:
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148054
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 24734
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 24734
`
`W Microsoft Word - Dokumenfl
`
`W Microsoft Ward — Cokumenti
`
`@ Eii Bediger 213 3911311“: Format Vgrkiey Iabeii Vifldu fiislp
`
`[:1 18 E5 5 :fi $3 $7 Showspeltingbiot
`At,
`1%; E $
`-EIE
`© Onefiufien
`
`dqlflju|n2wiu3ulngfiylus'infiug{in}
`
`
`1
`
`40
`
`Aiie Hadley!"
`
`
`
`E} El! Bediger His Seitjjin Fgrmat Vgrkliay Tabekl deu Hiep
`
`l—mama-24444.net-e~z-7-1i
`.b.;.g.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whim-1:1
`
`
`
`1
`Atle Hedtwyl
`151 University/11w ,4”
`Palo #110,841 943014532
`USA
`
`Fig. 3
`
`F1214
`
`Figure 3 on the left shows a word processor window, in which a user has
`
`entered a name. The name is processed by the '853 patent system after the user
`
`clicks the "OneButton" 42 in the upper right part ofthe window. Clicking the
`
`"OneButton" causes the system to "retrieve the name... from the document" and
`
`"search[] a database for the name... .". EX. 1001 at 5:64—65. Assuming that the
`
`search finds an address associated with the name, the system then inserts the
`
`address into the word processing document, as depicted in Fig. 4 on the right. EX.
`
`1002 at 1147.
`
`The bulk of the '853 patent relates to a high-level description of operations like
`
`these. The specification describes the user taking certain actions in a GUI, which
`
`resultin operations beingOperformed on contact information These actions can
`
`include adding a contact to a contact database, or sending an email based on the
`
`contact information. EX. 1002 at 1148.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148055
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 24735
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 24735
`
`The specification of the '853 patent, however, relates mainly to the end—result of
`
`contact information handling, that is, what the user of the computer system
`
`experiences as he or she uses the system. Exactly how these end-results are
`
`achieved is described only at the highest level. For example, the '853 patent
`
`provides no source code or pseudo code. High—level flowcharts for some
`
`embodiments are included, Ex. 1001 at Figs. la, lb, 2a and 2b, but each of these is
`
`limited to a general description of the desired functionality, with no
`
`implementation detail. Ex. 1002 at “MS—49.
`
`In fact, the '853 patent relies on existing word processors and existing databases
`
`to implement its contact management method, assuming that the person of ordinary
`
`skill can fill in the detail. The methods of the '853 patent are implemented on
`
`standard well—known operating systems and ordinary commodity computer
`
`hardware, all of which were readily available well before the filing of the
`
`application leading to the '853 patent. Ex. 1002 at W48-60.
`
`11.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE
`
`In the years leading up to earliest possible priority date (Sep. 1998), numerous
`
`systems existed that used personal computers to manage personal contact
`
`infomiation. These systems integrated sophisticated contact database technology
`
`available at the time with applications like word processors and applications that
`
`performed communications (such as email applications). Ex. 1002 at 1i26—44.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148056
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 24736
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 24736
`
`For example, systems like the one in US. Pat. No. 5,923,848 ("Goodhand")(Ex.
`
`1003) had been developed for analyzing text in a document, and assisting the user
`500
`
`in taking appropriate actions
`
`"Fa:
`
`
`
`with: 3m fiend; dammed A"
`
`based on the information
`
`discovered. Goodhand taught
`
`
`
`identifying (upon command)
`
`nicknames or shorthands for
`
`
`
`“(£613
`
`email addresses, and then
`
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`
`
`
`searching a contact database for
`
`corrected contact information to
`
`,
`,
`insert. Figures 6a—6c of
`
`Goodhand are shown at right,
`
`With highlighting added by the
`
`Petitioners to shown how
`
`
`.Qflélmmdm;Wm
`' a,
`t
`.
`all Barnes
`_ Bil! Baldy
`
`
`3mm
`, BiltiBleweil
`
`; Bfliéalkss
`. Bfiifilomwn
`3 53:53am
`
`
`. ex;
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`r: mafimmamw
`Addamd Beck
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Cam.
`
`
`Edda
`
`
`,
`F§O.5c
`
`correct contact information is found and inserted into the document. Ex. 1002 at
`
`“[4244.
`
`Another such system is taught in US. Pat. No. 6,026,410 ("Allen")(Ex. 1005)
`
`which dealt with the Lotus NotesTM application. Allen taught a system that
`
`analyzed text entered in an intelligent note editor, and identified certain keywords.
`
`These keywords were then mapped to contact information and other useful system
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148057
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 24737
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 24737
`
`datasets. In Figure 7 (at right,
`
`highlighting added), shows the Allen
`
`the contact database entry for "Paul
`
`system recognizing the keyword
`
`"Paul", matching the keyword with
`
`Jones", and displaying the results to
`
`the user. Ex. 1002 at fil45.
`
`In another example, US. Patent No. 5,644,735 to Luciw (Ex. 1006) describes a
`
`system for detecting structures in text and using a template—based system to offer
`
`the user options for handling the data so identified. Figures 6a and 6b, which
`
`illustrate a user entering a name and having the system provide a full name, are
`
`shown below. Ex. 1002 at {[28.
`
`I 7G
`
`”0'
`
`175*
`
`Phone
`
`‘NameW “a! ISAAC NEWTON
`
`
`
`‘F517m: 671:
`
`
`r375'‘ Nam63
`
`
`Phone
`
`
`
`£51
`,. Speaker diicdem
`:29
`r79
`1&3
`is;
`
`
`16/
`
`:75
`
`177
`
`k/
`
`ISJ
`‘
`f<“
`’ Speaker
`JMndem
`37:;
`183
`MS
`lg?)
`C154: @1733)
`
`Another example was the "Drop Zones" system described in an article by
`
`Bonura and Miller (Ex. 1007). Drop Zones integrated a text recognition approach
`
`akin to Luciw into common applications like word processors. The text
`
`recognition system of Drop Zones identified things like names, telephone numbers
`
`7
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148058
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 24738
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 24738
`
`and email addresses, and allowed the designer of the system to create arbitrary
`
`tasks. The Drop Zones system also used an electronic address book to convert
`
`between different kinds of contact information, and allowed the applications to
`
`update the address book with identified contact information. Fig. 2 of the Bonura
`
`article is shown below, and depicts how a name identified in a document can be
`
`used to cause a lookup on a name to retrieve an email address, thereby allowing an
`
`email to be sent. EX. 1002 at W29-30.
`
`
`
`reg—r ,,
`
` -
`
`flan“! when we «diam:
`
`.
`, an
`:6" §
`W {mmvm mflwthmMa-fi‘xw ,
`{Wwwmmflurwflrmmxm3
`t :
`:
`\
`
`'
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
`
`The '853 patent has 79 claims, but only one independent claim. Independent
`
`claim 1 provides:
`
`A computerized method for information handling within a
`
`document created using an application program, the document
`
`including first information provided therein, the method comprising:
`
`providing a record retrieval program;
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148059
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 24739
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 24739
`
`providing an input device configured to enter an execute command
`
`which initiates a record retrieval from an information source
`
`using the record retrieval program;
`
`upon a single entry of the execute command by means of the input
`
`device:
`
`analyzing the document to determine if the first information is
`
`contained therein, and
`
`if the first information is contained in the document, searching, using
`
`the record retrieval program, the information source for second
`
`information associated with the first information,
`
`and when the information source includes second information
`
`associated with the first information, performing at least one of,
`
`(a) displaying the second information,
`
`(b) inserting the second information in the document, and
`
`(c) completing the first information in the document based on the
`
`second information.
`
`As explained in the Allison Declaration, the dependent claims can be
`
`conceptually divided into three groups: claims 2—14, claims 15—16 and claims 17—
`
`79. EX. 1002 at W61-75.
`
`Claims 2-14 are dependent from claim 1, and each specify a different
`
`limitation.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 attempt, using only two claims, to convert method claims 1—
`
`14 into "system" and "storage medium" claims. Claim 15 recites "a computer
`
`system configured to perform the steps recited in one of claims 1-14." Likewise,
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148060
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 24740
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 24740
`
`claim 16 recites "a storage medium storing a program for performing the steps
`
`recited in one of claims 1-14." Ex. 1002 at 111161—75.
`
`Claims 17-79 repeat the limitations of claims 8-14 in different dependency
`
`relationships. The dependency relationships are done in blocks. For example, in
`
`the first block of claims 17-22, each claim has the same limitation as claim 8, but is
`
`dependent from a different claim. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 2, claim 18 is
`
`dependent from claim 3, and so forth, up to claim 22 being dependent from claim
`
`7. Because the content of claim 8 cannot be dependent from claim 8, the first
`
`block ends there. The next block of dependent claims is 23—29. Each of claims 23—
`
`29 recites the same limitation as claim 9, but is dependent on a different claim.
`
`Claim 23 is dependent from claim 2, claim 24 is dependent on claim 3 and so forth,
`
`up to claim 29 being dependent on claim 8. The second block ends there.
`
`Similarly, there are third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh blocks, corresponding to
`
`the content of claims 10-14. Ex. 1002 at 111161-75.
`
`The result of this claiming is shown in the following table:
`
`10
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148061
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 24741
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 24741
`
`
`
`Content
`
`of
`
`Claim:
`Dependent From Claim:
`
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`
`8
`17
`18
`19
`2O
`21
`22
`
`
`9
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`
`10
`3O
`31,
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`
`
`11
`38
`39
`4O
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`46
`
`
`12
`47
`48
`49
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`56
`
`
`13
`
`57
`
`58
`
`59
`
`60
`
`61
`
`62
`
`63
`
`64
`
`65
`
`66
`
`67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`79
`
`78
`77
`76
`75
`74
`73
`72
`71
`70
`69
`68
`14
`
`
`For example, in the chart above, highlighted claim 43 is dependent from claim
`
`7, and has the same content as claim 11. EX. 1002 at W61—75.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the "broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification." See 37 CPR. § 42.100(b). As stated by the Federal
`
`Circuit in the case In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.:
`
`"[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
`
`consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the
`
`specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
`
`otherwise apply a broad interpretation."
`
`ll
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148062
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 24742
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 24742
`
`496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In particular, claims in interpartes
`
`review should not be limited by party argument (whether in this or a prior
`
`proceeding). To the extent that the Patent Owner desires a claim term to be
`
`interpreted more narrowly than its broadest reasonable interpretation in light ofthe
`
`specification, the Patent Owner must show that the specification provides an
`
`express definition for the relevant portions of the claims, or amend the claims. See
`
`SAP v. Versata, CBM2012-00001, Pat. App. LEXIS 3788, *8 (PTAB June 11,
`
`2013). As found by the en banc Federal Circuit:
`
`"If, in reexamination, an examiner determines that particular claims
`
`are invalid and need amendment to be allowable, one would expect an
`
`examiner to require amendment rather than accept argument alone. "
`
`Marine Polymer Ted/2., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc, 672 F.3d 1350, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012)(en bane).
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, claim terms are presumed to take on their
`
`broadest reasonable ordinary meaning. This meaning is explained in certain
`
`instances in the following subsections. The Petitioners note that the standard of
`
`claim construction used in district courts differs from the standard applied before
`
`the USPTO. Any claim constructions in this Petition are directed to the USPTO
`
`standard, and are not necessarily the constructions that the Petitioners believe
`
`would be adopted in court. The Petitioners do not acquiesce or admit to the
`
`constructions reflected herein for any purpose outside of this proceeding.
`
`12
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148063
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 24743
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 24743
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 9, 11, 23-29, and 38-46 — "input device"
`
`In the '853 patent, the term "input device" includes a GUI element on screen,
`
`and is thus not limited to only hardware devices. EX. 1002 at 117 8.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 — "perform[ing] the steps recited in one of
`claims 1-14"
`
`Claims 15 recites " 15. A computer system configured to perform the steps
`
`recited in one of claims 1—14." Claim 16 recites " 16. A storage medium storing a
`
`program for performing the steps recited in one of claims 1—14."
`
`These claims are not multiple dependent claims, because do not further limit
`
`any of a group of superior claims. Rather, claims 15 and 16 are independent
`
`claims that incorporate as body elements only "one of" claims 1—14. The broadest
`
`reading for these claims results by choosing claim 1 as the "one of claims 1-14".
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, claims 15
`
`and 16 recite system and storage medium claims respectively, each having the
`
`body elements of claim 1. EX. 1002 at 1179.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 6, 12 and 47-56 — "first information includes an
`
`identification of a list of addressees"
`
`Claims 6, 12 and 47-56 recite that the "first information includes an
`
`identification of a list of addressees". This phrase is ambiguous. It could mean
`
`that, in the document, there must be a name of a list. It could also mean that the
`
`first information identifies addressees in a list. EX. 1002 at 1180. The specification
`
`l3
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148064
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 24744
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 24744
`
`does not use the phrase "list of addressees" nor the phrase "identification of a list".
`
`EX. 1002 at 1181. The phrase "mailing list" is used (4: 14—15 and 4:38—42), but it is
`
`unclear whether this is the name of a list or the list itself. EX. 1002 at ‘H81. Under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, then, the phrase "[the] first information
`
`includes an identification of a list of addressees" should mean " [the] first
`
`information is sufficient to identify multiple addressees". EX. 1002 at {[83.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM-BY—CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`
`UNPATENTABILITY.
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1—9, 11, 13-29, 38-45, 57-64, 66, 68-75, 77 and 79 are
`
`invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goodhand.
`
`Claims 1—9, 11, 13—29, 38—45, 57—64, 66, 68—75, 77 and 79 are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US. Pat. No. 5,923,848 ("Goodhand") (EX. 1003).
`
`Goodhand was filed on May 31, 1996 and issued on July 13, 1999, making it prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). EX. 1002 at 1185.
`
`Goodhand teaches a "system and method for resolving email recipients' names."
`
`EX. 1003 at Title. The background technology of Goodhand’s system is an email
`
`application, for example Microsoft Outlook. EX. 1003 at 8:37—43. Petitioner notes
`
`that in a co-pending litigation, the Patent Owner has asserted a related patent (U. S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,496,854), which is a continuation of the patent at issue here. Claim 1 of
`
`the '854 patent similarly requires information handling in a "document", which the
`
`Patent Owner reads on an "email document" in Gmail. This is shown in the
`
`14
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148065
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 24745
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 24745
`
`attached Exhibit 1014, which is the relevant portion of the Patent Owner's
`
`infringement contentions, with highlighting added on page 1 by the Petitioners.
`
`Ex. 1014 at 1.
`
`In the Goodhand email document, a user is allowed to enter some first text. The
`
`first text should be text related to a person to whom the user would like to send the
`
`email. Ex. 1002 at 1190. When the user enters an execute command, the system
`
`analyzes the document, takes some of the text input, searches a database, and
`
`comes up with second text. Ex. 1002 at 91-104. The second text is a name or
`
`email address of the person to whom the email is being sent, and is used to correct
`
`or supplement the first text. The insertion of a proper recipient allows the email to
`
`be sent. This process is called "address resolution". Ex. 1003 at 16:48—52; 2: 17-
`
`25, Ex. 1002 at 111188—104.
`
`Figures 621-60 Of Goodhand (at right) show the
`
`
`““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““"""'""'"'.jjjjjjjiji:,,,,,,,,
`111111;. szr. hang. imttemm: .’
`3.2.
`
`
`process of address resolution. A user enters one
`
`or more names (here "blllb", "sm henry" and
`
`
`
`
`g" i ‘Q‘mmmm‘mm
`\’ “’5
`1:10.61:
`
`
`
`
`
`1 $
`
`1
`
`70:
`
`"patterson") in the "T02" field. When the user exits
`
`the field (or alternatively, clicks a specific button),
`
`.
`J
`the system analyzes the user—entered text, breaking
`
`it up into smaller pieces. Ex. 1002 at 1111101, 122.
`
`It then recognizes "billb", "sm henry" and
`
`15
`
`3
`
`1
`
`,ggi51 tfiim‘911*}.W
`33mm
`$385212”.mam;
`maize
`855W“
`St’waMme-s..
`we _
`W93 thw for 'Mb"
`£13!
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148066
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 24746
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 24746
`
`"patterson" as unresolved addresses, and searches for them in an external address
`
`book. Ex. 1003 at 17 :22—30. The system tries to match each of "billb", "sm henry"
`
`and "patterson" with specific address book entries. Ex. 1003 at 17 :34-37 ', Ex. 1002
`
`at 1111884 14.
`
`If the search for any text string results in one unambiguous hit in the address
`
`book, the full name of the person located by the search will be inserted in the "To: "
`
`line (here: "sm henry" is replaced with "Henry Smith" and "patterson" is replaced
`
`with "Roger Patterson" in Fig. 6b). Ex. 1003 at 17:37—40. Ifthe search result is
`
`ambiguous (as was the case for "billb"), the user is given several options to resolve
`
`the ambiguity. Ex. 1003 at 17:53-62; Ex. 1002 at W884 14.
`
`Thus, like the '853 patent, the Goodhand system responds to a user input
`
`command (e.g., the "check names" command), analyzes text in an email document
`
`(the user—entered text string) to find "first information" (the text string subdivided
`
`into tokens that can be used to search a database), uses the first information to
`
`search a separate address book, returns the results of the search in the form of an
`
`improved name or email address (second information), and inserts the improved
`
`name or email address in the document, thereby correcting, completing and
`
`displaying the improved name or email address.
`
`Goodhand anticipates the claims challenged in this ground. The ground
`
`presents Goodhand under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, for two reasons. First, claim
`
`16
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148067
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 24747
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 24747
`
`1 of the ’853 patent requires a "record retrieval program", and requires "initiat[ing]
`
`a record retrieval from an information source using the record retrieval program".
`
`In Goohand, the information source is contained in one or more address books.
`
`These address books can be searched. In the case of Goodhand, the search is done
`
`by first analyzing text in an address line of an email to identify one or more search
`
`temis (called "display names"). These search terms are used to search the address
`
`book(s), in order to obtain better addressing information. Goodhand states:
`
`"As mentioned above, ’resolving’ the names means attempting to
`
`match the display names in the address field to specific user
`
`aliases that are included in a centralized address book or
`
`directogy, which is typically stored on a remote server, such as
`
`remote memory storage device 33 (FIG. 1)." EX. 1003 at 17 :29—41
`
`(emphasis added); EX. 1002 at 11118.
`
`There is no doubt from the above that a record retrieval is carried out, and that
`
`that the retrival is done by program code. EX. 1002 at W96, 118. However, to the
`
`extent that the Patent Owner argues that Goodhand does not teach a separate
`
`"record retrieval program", it would have been obvious to provide one. Goodhand
`
`notes that its email system is conceptually divided into several components:
`
`"Like many personal information managers, the preferred application
`
`program is divided into several modules, including a calendar
`
`manager, a task list manager, a contact manager, a message
`
`17
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`ARENDI 148068
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 23 of 64 PageID #: 24748
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 306-6 Filed 03/10/21 Page 23 of 64 PageID #: 24748
`
`manager ge—maill, and a notes manager." EX. 1003 at 8:45-49, EX.
`
`1002 at 11118.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have understood the "contact manager" to
`
`have an address book function, and to be separate from the "message manager
`
`(email)". EX. 1002 at 111135, 118. Such a "contact manager" (like most databases)
`
`would have a data structure to contain information, and program code to access
`
`and modify the information. EX. 1002 at 111196, 118.
`
`Goodhand further emphasizes that the different modules (including the contact
`
`manager) can be separated and distributed:
`
`"In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be
`
`physically located in different local and remote memopy storage
`
`devices. Execution of the program modules may occur locally in a
`
`stand-alone manner or remotely in a client/server manner." EX.
`
`1003 at 8:58—62; EX. 1002 at 11118.
`
`In fact, as shown in the quote above on page 17, the information that the system
`
`searches for is "included in a centralized address book or directory, which
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
