Filed on behalf of:
`Google Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 1
`
`
`Date: September 7, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`
`IPR2017-02059
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,581,991
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i
`EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................................................................. iv
`I.
`PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION AND Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R
`§ 42.8 ............................................................................................................ 1
`Grounds For Standing Under § 42.104(a) ..................................................... 5
`II.
`III. The ‘991 Patent And The Field Of Art .......................................................... 5
`IV.
`Identification Of Challenges Under § 42.104(b) ........................................... 7
`A. Overview Of The Grounds For This Petition ...................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Earliest Effective Filing Date Of The Challenged Claims ............ 8
`
`Prior Art Status Of The References .................................................. 10
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art .................................................. 11
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................. 11
`V.
`VI. GROUND 1—ANTICIPATION BY NICHOLAS ...................................... 13
`A. Claim 22 ........................................................................................... 14
`
`B. Claim 23 ........................................................................................... 21
`
`C. Claim 25 ........................................................................................... 22
`
`D. Claim 27 ........................................................................................... 22
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 28 ........................................................................................... 23
`
`Claim 29 ........................................................................................... 23
`
`G. Claim 32 ........................................................................................... 24
`
`H. Claim 33 ........................................................................................... 30
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 35 ........................................................................................... 30
`
`Claim 36 ........................................................................................... 31
`
`Page
`
`K. Claim 37 ........................................................................................... 31
`
`L.
`
`Claim 38 ........................................................................................... 32
`
`VII. GROUND 2—OBVIOUSNESS BY INOUE IN VIEW OF NAIR ............. 32
`A. Claim 22 ........................................................................................... 33
`
`B. Claim 23 ........................................................................................... 41
`
`C. Claim 25 ........................................................................................... 41
`
`D. Claim 27 ........................................................................................... 43
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 28 ........................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 29 ........................................................................................... 44
`
`G. Claim 32 ........................................................................................... 45
`
`H. Claim 33 ........................................................................................... 51
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 35 ........................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 36 ........................................................................................... 52
`
`K. Claim 37 ........................................................................................... 53
`
`L.
`
`Claim 38 ........................................................................................... 53
`
`VIII. GROUND 3—OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF INOUE, NAIR AND
`NARAYANASWAMI ................................................................................ 54
`IX. GROUND 4—OBVIOUSNESS BY UMEDA IN VIEW OF INOUE ........ 54
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`A. Claim 22 ........................................................................................... 55
`
`B. Claim 23 ........................................................................................... 59
`
`C. Claim 25 ........................................................................................... 60
`
`D. Claim 27 ........................................................................................... 60
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 28 ........................................................................................... 61
`
`Claim 29 ........................................................................................... 61
`
`G. Claim 32 ........................................................................................... 62
`
`H. Claim 33 ........................................................................................... 66
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 35 ........................................................................................... 66
`
`Claim 36 ........................................................................................... 66
`
`K. Claim 37 ........................................................................................... 67
`
`L.
`
`Claim 38 ........................................................................................... 67
`
`CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................... 68
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No. Brief Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991 to Clemente (“the ‘991 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Alleged Priority Document: U.S. Provisional Application Serial No.
`60/702,470
`
`Alleged Priority Document: Prosecution History of U.S. Application
`Serial No. 11/484,373, now Pat. No. 7,633,524
`
`Alleged Priority Document: Prosecution History of U.S. Application
`Serial No. 12/637,277, now Pat. No. 7,907,172
`
`Prosecution History of the U.S. Application Serial No. 13/925,498, now
`Pat. No. 8,581,9911
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133668 to Nicholas, III,
`provisional application file September 12 2002, utility application filed
`September 12, 2003, and published July 8, 2004 (“Nicholas”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0127208 to Nair, et al.,
`filed August 4, 2003 and published July 1, 2004 (“Nair”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109066 to Inoue, et al.,
`filed December 3, 2003 and published June 10, 2004 (“Inoue”)
`
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0150228 to Umeda, et al.,
`
`
`1 The prosecution histories of two intervening U.S. Patent Applications (the
`
`applications that issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,134,600 and 8,477,197) are publicly
`
`available and contain double-patenting rejections, but they have not been submitted
`
`as exhibits to this petition as Petitioner does not rely upon them.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`filed August 10, 2001 and published October 17, 2002 (“Umeda”)
`
`1010
`
`Narayanaswami, et al., “Expanding the Digital Camera’s Reach,”
`Computer, Vol. 37, Issue 12 (IEEE Dec. 2004), p. 65
`(“Narayanaswami”)
`
`1011 Declaration of Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Google Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”), in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311-
`
`319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, hereby petitions for inter partes review of claims 22,
`
`23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991 to
`
`Clemente et al. (Ex. 1001, “the ‘991 Patent”). The ‘991 Patent issued on November
`
`12, 2013 from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/925,498, filed June 24, 2013,
`
`entitled “Integrated Internet Camera System and Method” (Ex. 1001) (cover). The
`
`‘991 Patent’s application is a continuation of U.S. Application Serial No.
`
`13/415,346, now Pat. No. 8,477,197, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`Serial No. 13/037,303, now Pat. No. 8,134,600, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Application Serial No. 12/637,277, now Pat. No. 7,907,172, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application Serial No. 11/484,373, now Pat. No. 7,633,524
`
`(Ex. 1003), and asserts that it is entitled to the effective filing date of U.S.
`
`Provisional Application Serial No. 60/702,470 (Ex. 1002). See Ex. 1001 (cover).
`
`According to USPTO-PAIR records, the ‘991 Patent is assigned to Alex Is The
`
`Best, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`I.
`
`PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION AND MANDATORY NOTICES
`UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8
`
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge the fee set out in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and any additional fees due, to Deposit Account No. 10-
`
`0435, with reference to file number 51783-259742.
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Google Inc. is the Petitioner and a real party-in-interest in this proceeding.
`
`This petition is also being filed by Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. and Lenovo
`
`(United States) Inc., which are real parties in interest in this proceeding. Motorola
`
`Mobility, LLC, Huawei Devices USA Inc., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc.
`
`are additional real parties in interest.
`
`To Petitioner’s knowledge, Patent Owner has asserted the ‘991 Patent in past
`
`or ongoing litigation captioned Alex is the Best, LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., Case
`
`No. 1:16-cv-00769 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. Huawei Device (Dongguan)
`
`Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00770 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. Lenovo
`
`Holding Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00771-RGA (DED); Alex is the
`
`Best, LLC v. TCT Mobile, Inc., et al., 1:16-Cv-00772 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`v. Boost Mobile, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-01782 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v.
`
`Kyocera Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01783 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-01784 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. T-
`
`Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01785 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v.
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01786 (DED); Alex is the
`
`Best, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01787 (DED);
`
`Alex is the Best, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01722 (DED);
`
`Alex is the Best, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, Case No. 1:13-cv-01723
`
`(DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. Blackberry Limited f/k/a Research in Motion
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Limited, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01724 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. HTC
`
`Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01725 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v. LG
`
`Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01726 (DED); Alex is the Best, LLC v.
`
`Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01727 (DED; and Alex is the Best, LLC
`
`v. ZTE Corporation, et al., Case No. 1;13-cv-01728 (DED) (the “Litigations”).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner is aware of the following issued, expired, abandoned
`
`or pending applications and cases that have been alleged by Patent Owner to be
`
`related to the ‘600 Patent: Provisional Application Serial No. 60/702,470 filed on
`
`07-26-2005, which is expired; U.S. Application Serial No. 11/484,373 filed on 07-
`
`11-2006, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 12/637,277 filed on 12-
`
`14-2009, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 13/415,346 filed on 03-
`
`08-2012, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 13/925,498 filed on 06-
`
`24-2013, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 14/053,600 filed on 10-
`
`15-2013, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 14/578,403 filed on 12-
`
`20-2014, which is patented; U.S. Application Serial No. 14/948,486 filed on 11-
`
`23-2015, which is patented; and U.S. Application Serial No. 15/295,940 filed on
`
`10-17-2016, which is pending.
`
`Petitioner identifies the following lead and back-up counsel in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joshua P. Larsen (Reg. No. 62,761)
`Barnes &Thornburg LLP
`11 S Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`joshua.larsen@btlaw.com
`(317) 236-1313
`
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Jeff M. Barron (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`Barnes &Thornburg LLP
`11 S Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`jeff.barron@btlaw.com
`(317) 236-1313
`Back-Up Counsel
`Steven D. Shipe (Reg. No. 71,944)
`Barnes &Thornburg LLP
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
`Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`steven.shipe@btlaw.com
`(202) 289-1313
`
`
`Petitioner agrees to service by electronic mail to the addresses of each of its
`
`designated counsel
`
`(joshua.larsen@btlaw.com,
`
`jeff.barron@btlaw.com, and
`
`steven.shipe@btlaw.com).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER § 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘991 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. THE ‘991 PATENT AND THE FIELD OF ART
`
`The entitled “INTEGRATED INTERNET CAMERA SYSTEM AND
`
`METHOD,” “relates to an integrated Internet camera and/or system that is simple
`
`to install, operate and maintain[].” Ex. 1001, 1:19-21; see also Ex. 1011, Decl. of
`
`Madisetti, Ph.D., ¶¶34-48
`
`(“Madisetti”). The system “seamlessly and
`
`automatically transmits, stores and/or archives still images, video and/or audio to
`
`and from a web site serve/monitor center over the Internet using one or more
`
`integrated Internet cameras.” Ex. 1001, 1:22-25. Although the ‘991 Patent
`
`acknowledges that Internet cameras which can transmit images to and from the
`
`Internet are not new, the applicants asserted that prior art cameras needed
`
`additional devices to connect to the Internet (e.g., a personal computer), required a
`
`“network” card that did not provide “two-way access to the image file,” and did
`
`not have the capability to “seamlessly upload and download” images via the
`
`Internet. Id., 1:52–2:3.
`
`The ‘991 Patent’s disclosure primarily concerns the use of a camera to
`
`upload or download images to and from a “website archive and review center
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(‘WSARC’).” Id., 2:13–3:4, Fig. 2. The WSARC comprises a “web server and one
`
`or more databases” that are accessible via the Internet. Id., 3:23–30. In some
`
`embodiments, the ‘991 Patent describes its camera as connecting to the WSARC
`
`via one of a variety of different modes of communication, including “land line,
`
`DSL, cable, satellite, wireless network, cellular, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and the like.” Id.,
`
`3:35-37. “Preferably, the IDC 2000 [Internet direct camera] connects to the
`
`Internet via a primary mode of communication and switches over to a secondary
`
`mode of communication if the IDC 2000 detects a failure in the primary mode of
`
`communication.” Id., 3:37-41. This automatic switching need not occur
`
`immediately; indeed, the ‘991 Patent describes scenarios where the network
`
`connection is lost and images are stored for later transmission. Id., 4:43-63.
`
`The challenged claims generally concern the function of transmitting images
`
`via the Internet using an “Internet direct device” and to other Internet direct
`
`devices. Although the ‘991 Patent’s specification describes using a WSARC to
`
`also be part of the claimed function of sending and receiving images, the
`
`challenged claims require only an Internet Direct Device and omit any mention of
`
`a WSARC. See claims 22, 23, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38. Thus, the device as
`
`claimed in the ‘991 Patent does not require the use of a WSARC. Rather, the
`
`claims include cameras and other devices that perform their recited elements both
`
`with and without the use of a WSARC.
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER § 42.104(B)
`
`Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of Claims 22, 23, 25,
`
`27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38 of the ‘991 Patent on the grounds below, and requests that
`
`each of the challenged claims be found unpatentable. Included thereafter is an
`
`explanation of unpatentability under the identified grounds, indicating how each
`
`element is achieved by, and the relevance of, the prior art.
`
`A. Overview Of The Grounds For This Petition
`
`Ground Challenged Claims
`
`Statutory Ground and Prior Art
`
`Ground 1 22, 23, 25, 27-29,
`
`Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view
`of Nicholas
`
`32, 33, and 35-38
`
`Ground 2 22, 23, 25, 27-29,
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Inoue and Nair
`
`32, 33, and 35-38
`
`Ground 3 25, 27, 28, and 35-
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Inoue, Nair and Narayanswami
`
`37
`
`Ground 4 22, 23, 25, 27-29,
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
`of Umeda and Inoue
`
`32, 33, and 35-38
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`As discussed below, each of the foregoing references constitutes prior art
`
`under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b).
`
`B.
`
`The Earliest Effective Filing Date Of The Challenged Claims
`
`The challenged claims are entitled to an effective filing date of no earlier
`
`than July 11, 2006, which is the filing date of the earliest related utility application,
`
`U.S. Application Serial No. 11/484,373, now U.S. Patent No. 7,633,524 (“the ‘373
`
`Application”). Ex. 1001 (cover, “Related U.S. Application Data”). None of these
`
`claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of U.S. Provisional
`
`Application Serial No. 60/702,470 (the “Provisional”), which is also identified as a
`
`related application on the cover of the ‘991 Patent. Id.
`
`“It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit
`
`of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier
`
`application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The Provisional must “convey with reasonable
`
`clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the applicant]
`
`was in possession of the invention” in the claims as issued. Vas–Cath Inc. v.
`
`Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed.Cir.1991) (emphasis in original).
`
`“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not
`
`disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis,
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`522 F.3d at 1306 (citation omitted). The written description of the earlier
`
`application must instead “actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” Id.
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`Each independent claim contains two elements that are not described in the
`
`Provisional. The claims requires that the (a) Internet direct device “automatically
`
`connects to said communications network on power-up using one of a plurality of
`
`available modes of connection” using a primary mode of connection and (b)
`
`“automatically switches to another available mode of connection when … said
`
`primary mode of connection to said communications network is unavailable.”
`
`The Provisional does not describe either of these elements. The Provisional
`
`describes an “Internet Direct Camera (IDC)” that transmits images to a “Web Site
`
`Storage Center (WSSC)” on the Internet. Ex. 1002, p. 1. It describes “[s]ix ways to
`
`transmit data to internet [sic]”: “Cable,” “T-Line,” “DSL,” “WiMax or Wi-Fi,”
`
`“Satellite,” and “Cell phone number direct to WSSC,” along with “any combo of
`
`above as primary with another as secondary backup.” Ex. 1002, pp. 1-2.
`
`Missing from the Provisional is any description of a device, system or
`
`method that automatically connects to the Internet or any other communication
`
`network “on power-up” using any one of its disclosed ways of transmitting data, as
`
`the claims require. The Provisional also fails to describe any apparatus, system or
`
`method for “automatically” switching to another mode of communication when
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the primary mode of communication is unavailable. The Provisional references
`
`only using a secondary “way” of transmission as a “backup,” but does not describe
`
`a device that automatically switches to a backup. In the absence of such a
`
`disclosure, the switch would have been done by the user as part of a manual
`
`process. The Provisional does not support the challenged claims.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art Status Of The References
`
`Nicholas (Ex. 1006) published on July 8, 2004. It is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Nair (Ex. 1007) published on July 1, 2004. It is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Inoue (Ex. 1008) was published on June 10, 2004. It is prior art under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Umeda (Ex. 1009) was published on October 17, 2002. It is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
`
`Narayanaswami (Ex. 1010) published no later than December, 2004. It is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`D. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`At the time of the alleged invention,2 one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`field with which the ‘991 patent pertains would have had at least a Bachelor’s
`
`Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or Computer Engineering, or
`
`equivalent experience, and 1-2 years of experience in the field of computer
`
`networking and/or telecommunications. Alternatively, an individual without a
`
`bachelor’s degree, but with additional years of experience developing and
`
`deploying voice, video, and call processing applications would also be a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Madisetti, ¶¶56-59.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`Each term of an unexpired patent claim in inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For the purposes of this Petition and
`
`
`2 The level of ordinary skill in the art would not vary if the time of the alleged
`
`invention is assumed to be within one year of the filing of the Provisional July 26,
`
`2005, including the date of the utility application filing (July 11, 2006). Madisetti,
`
`¶57.
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”), Petitioner provides the
`
`following claim term interpretations:3
`
`The term “Internet direct device” (“IDD”) includes at least a device that is
`
`capable of connecting to the Internet without the necessity of connecting to another
`
`device, such as a PC. Madisetti, ¶¶37-40.
`
`At this time, Petitioner believes that none of its unpatentability positions
`
`requires a construction of any other claim term, and that such terms should take
`
`their term’s plain meaning. Petitioner also takes the position that the preambles of
`
`the challenged claims are not limiting as they are not necessary to give life to the
`
`claim and merely state intended purpose. Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618
`
`F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
`
`Schering–Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Petitioner may explain the scope of the plain meaning of any claim term to
`
`the extent that Patent Owner takes a position on claim scope that appears
`
`materially different from its plain meaning. Petitioner also reserves the right to
`
`
`3 Petitioner reserves all rights to challenge the basis of patentability of the claims of
`the ‘991 Patent on grounds which are not available for consideration under inter
`
`partes review at this time, for example but without limitation, standards for
`
`claiming under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`assert additional or alternate claim construction positions under the differing
`
`standards for claim interpretation that apply to, e.g., proceedings in District Court.
`
`VI. GROUND 1—ANTICIPATION BY NICHOLAS
`
`Claims 22, 23, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, and 35-38 include Internet devices that
`
`transfer videos or audio over a “communications network.” The claims include
`
`devices and methods that transmit and receive “still or video images to [and from]
`
`another Internet direct device,” e.g., provide for videocalls and conferencing. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:1-20 (claim 22). The claimed device connects to a “communications
`
`network” on power-up using a “primary mode of connection.” The device switches
`
`to “another mode of connection” should the primary mode of connection become
`
`“unavailable.” E.g., id., 10:30-37.
`
`Nicholas (Ex. 1006) was not before the Examiner during prosecution and
`
`discloses an “end user device” for seamless roaming across networks and
`
`transmission of video images, audio, text and other multimedia via the Internet. In
`
`one example, Nicholas’s end-user device uses a primary mode to connect to a
`
`communications network (e.g., a wired Local Access Network or “LAN”), to
`
`which it can automatically connect on power-up. When the primary mode is
`
`unavailable, Nicholas automatically switches to another mode of communication—
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`e.g., a wireless network—to maintain its connection. Nicholas anticipates the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`A. Claim 22
`
`22. A method for transmitting and receiving still or video images by
`
`an
`
`Internet direct device associated with a user over a
`
`communications network, comprising the steps of:
`
`The preamble of claim 22 is not limiting. To the extent it is, Nicholas
`
`discloses it. Nicholas discloses an Internet direct device, specifically, an “end user
`
`device 100” which is “any device capable of communicating data to or from a data
`
`communication network in accordance with one or more wired and/or wireless
`
`communication protocols.” Ex. 1006, ¶0019. The data communication network
`
`includes, among others, an “Internet connection.” Id.; see also id. at ¶0020, Fig. 1
`
`(100). Nicholas’s end user device has an imaging system that can capture at least
`
`video images: “Exemplary end user device 100 further comprises … an optional
`
`built-in video camera and microphone for enabling videoconferencing and the
`
`like.” Id., ¶¶0024, 0032, 0033; see also id., Fig. 1 (120). The end user device is
`
`associated with a user and practices a method of transmitting and receiving audio
`
`or video images by, e.g., videocalling and videoconferencing. Id., ¶¶0032-0034;
`
`see also id., ¶0020, Fig. 1 (100), Madisetti, ¶¶85-88, 627-630, 712-723.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Video Camera and Mic
`built-in/option
`
`j
`GbE, 6. 0,/ / X, B T ,,,,,,,,,,
`built-in
`,,,,,,,,,,,,,
`
`丨 气
`
`Wireless BT
`Headset Options
`
`GPRS built-in or
`co⻔门 nects via GT
`GPRS phone
`
`I D O
`
`$ % & ()+ ,
`
`- - -t!-•-•. Jr/ ! -*-0
`
`1 - 0
`3)$
`
`i屢 $f
`
`#
`
`4 一!-$
`!);!— !
`I-0•
`一 -= > $‘，$/一 -
`
`$i
`*/
`
`$•!
`--'
`龜雩
` '
`••$•#
`
`Silent Ring Light
`Message Waiting しight
`
`ク*) !'-'-:•
`
`/ ! !
`
`_r.11-':. !i ! 935 315»1l5»»
`
`VoIP handset connected to
`network with GbE switch
`
`Quick dock/undock
`in any state
`
`Windows XP Mobile Client
`(Notebook or Tablet)
`
`Smart Power system always
`maintains enough power to
`keep secure comms link alive
`(virtual off)
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1.
`
`automatically connecting
`
`the
`
`Internet direct device
`
`to said
`
`communications network on power-up using one of a plurality of
`
`available modes of connection, which is designated as a primary
`
`mode of connection;
`
`Nicholas discloses automatically connecting its end user device to a
`
`communications network on power-up using one of a plurality of available modes
`
`of connection, which is designated a primary mode of connection. Nicholas states
`
`that an “end user device is provided that supports a connection to a plurality of data
`
`communication networks.” Ex. 1006, Abstract; see also id., ¶0008. The end user
`
`device detects which data communication networks are available “and selectively
`
`determines which of the plurality of data communication networks provides the
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`most optimal communication channel.” Id. The end user device then connects to
`
`the selected network. Id.
`
`Nicholas further states that its end user device can connect to a plurality of
`
`networks, including wired Ethernet, a wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) or a
`
`wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN). Id., ¶0020. In one embodiment, the end
`
`user device detects the available networks “as part of a power-up sequence” and
`
`selects the network to connect to as part of the same sequence. Id., ¶¶0046, 0050-
`
`0056, 0056 (noting that “[t]here may be an identity between network detection
`
`functions and the collection of information necessary to perform network
`
`selection,” i.e., detection and selection can occur at the same time). Nicholas
`
`explains:
`
`The network detection function is preferably per formed automatically
`
`by the end user device. For example, the network detection function
`
`may be performed automatically: (1) as part of the power-up sequence
`
`of the end user device to determine which network(s) are initially
`
`available to the end user device ….
`
`Id., ¶0046.
`
`Which available network is selected as the primary network can be based on
`
`“one or more predefined criteria.” Id., ¶0049. The predefined criteria can include
`
`the type of data being transferred, the bit error rate, signal-to-noise ratio, the costs
`
`of connecting to the network (e.g., preferring to connect to networks that charge
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`lower fees), and other predetermined criteria. Id., ¶¶0050-0055. Nicholas also
`
`describes selecting a primary network based at least in part upon the location of the
`
`device and the user. E.g., Id., ¶¶0030-0032. For example, in one embodiment the
`
`device is “desk-bound at a primary office location[.]” Id., ¶0031. “While desk-
`
`bound at a primary office location, an end user device … provides a connection to
`
`a LAN/WLAN,” which is the primary mode of connection. Id., 0032. Nicholas
`
`states that while desk-bound at a primary office location, its end user device
`
`provides a range of functionality, including the “enabling of video and voice calls.”
`
`Id. The connection may use a docking station, but it does not require a docking
`
`station in order to connect to either the wired or wireless LAN. Id. In this example,
`
`either the wired or wireless connection at Nicholas’s primary office location can be
`
`the primary mode of connection. Id.; Madisetti, ¶¶713-715.
`
`capturing still or video images by an image capture system of the
`
`Internet direct device;
`
`Nicholas’s end user device includes an imaging system that can capture at
`
`least video images: “Exemplary end user device 100 further comprises … an
`
`optional built-in video camera and microphone 120 for enabling video
`
`teleconferencing and the like.” Ex. 1006, ¶¶0024; see also id., ¶¶0032, 0033, Fig. 1
`
`(120). The end user device’s camera and microphone capture at least video images
`
`as part of a video call or conference. Id.; Madisetti, ¶716.
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,991
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`transmitting the captured still or video images to another Internet
`
`direct device over said communica