Sipnet EU S.R.O.v.Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2014

08533115 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 73
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 23, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
Petitioner,
v.
STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1
_______________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
37 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Sipnet EU S.R.O. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter
partes review of claims 1‒7 and 32‒42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 C1 (the
“ ’704 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Straight Path IP Group (“Patent Owner”)
filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
instituted inter partes review on October 11, 2013, as to claims 1‒7 and 32‒
42 of the ʼ704 patent on the following grounds of unpatentability: claims 1–
7, 32, and 38–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by NetBIOS;1 claims
1–7 and 32–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by WINS;2 and claims
33–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over NetBIOS and WINS. Paper
11 (“Dec.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 30,
“PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Pet. Reply”). Oral
hearing was held on July 11, 2014, and the hearing transcript was entered in
the record as Paper 61 (“Tr.”). We rendered a Final Written Decision and
held that Petitioner had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
that (1) claims 1–7, 32, and 38–42 are anticipated by NetBIOS; (2) claims 1–
7 and 32–42 are anticipated by WINS; and (3) claims 33–37 are obvious
over NetBIOS and WINS.
Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal (see Paper 67) and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Straight

1 THE OPEN GROUP, TECHNICAL STANDARD – PROTOCOLS FOR X/OPEN PC
INTERWORKING/SMB, VERSION 2 (1992) (Ex. 1003) (“NetBIOS”).
2 WINDOWS NT 3.5, TCP/IP USER GUIDE (1994) (Ex. 1004) (“WINS”).
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

3

Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
reversing our cancellation of claims 1‒7 and 32‒42 and remanding for
further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision. Straight
Path, 806 F.3d at 1363‒64; see Paper 68.
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1‒7 and 32‒42 of the
ʼ704 patent are unpatentable.
B. Related Proceedings
Petitioner identifies the following related district court proceedings
involving the ’704 patent: Net2Phone, Inc. v. eBay Inc., Skype Inc., Civil
Action No. 06-2469 (D.N.J.), filed June 1, 2006 (“the Skype Litigation”),
and Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Stalker Software, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00009-RGD-TEM (E.D. Va.), filed Jan. 4, 2012
(“the Stalker litigation”). Pet. 3.
Petitioner also identifies the ’704 patent as the subject of Ex Parte
Reexamination proceeding Control No. 90/010,416. Pet. 3. The ’704 patent
is also the subject of inter partes review in IPR2014-01366 and IPR2015-
00209.
C. The ʼ704 Patent
The ’704 patent is titled “Point-to-Point Internet Protocol” and
generally relates to establishing a point-to-point communication link.
Ex. 1001, 2:53–57. The ’704 patent explains that a first processing unit
automatically transmits its associated e-mail address, and its IP address, to a
connection server. Ex. 1001, 5:25–38. The connection server stores the
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

4

addresses in a database and, thus, the first processing unit is established as
an active on-line party available for communication. Id. The first
processing unit sends a query to the connection server, which searches the
database to determine whether a second processing unit is active and on-line.
Ex. 1001, 5:55–60. If the callee is active and on-line, the connection server
sends the IP address of the callee from the database to the first processing
unit, i.e., performs a point-to-point Internet protocol communication.
Ex. 1001, 5:60–64. The first processing unit then directly establishes the
point-to-point Internet communication with the callee using the retrieved IP
address. Ex. 1001, 5:64–67.
Figure 1 of the ’704 patent is reproduced below:

Figure 1 above illustrates the architecture between first processing unit 12,
second processing unit 22, and connection server 26. Ex. 1001, 5:15–29.
D. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1‒7 and 32‒42 of the ’704 patent. Pet. 5‒
10, 26–28, 33‒58. Claim 1 of the ’704 patent is illustrative of the claims at
issue and is reproduced below.
1. A computer program product for use with a computer
system, the computer system executing a first process and
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

5

operatively connectable to a second process and a server over a
computer network, the computer program product comprising:
a computer usable medium having program code
embodied in the medium, the program code comprising:
program code for transmitting to the server a network
protocol address received by the first process following
connection to the computer network;
program code for transmitting, to the server, a query as to
whether the second process is connected to the computer
network;
program code for receiving a network protocol address of
the second process from the server, when the second process is
connected to the computer network; and
program code, responsive to the network protocol
address of the second process, for establishing a point-to-point
communication link between the first process and the second
process over the computer network.
E. Claim Construction
We construe expired patent claims according to the standard applied
by the district courts. See In re Rambus, 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Specifically, we apply the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In determining the
meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic
evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning, and that is the meaning the term would have to a person of
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

6

ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent
including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Claims are
not interpreted in a vacuum but are a part of and read in light of the
specification. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although it is improper to read a limitation from the
specification into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
(Fed. Cir. 1993), the claims still must be read in view of the specification of
which they are a part. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and
only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We construe the
following claim terms.
1. “is connected to the computer network” / “on-line status” /
“currently connected to the Internet”/ “connected to the
computer network”
Independent claim 1 of the ʼ704 patent recites, “transmitting, to the
server, a query as to whether the second process is connected to the
computer network” (emphasis added). Independent claims 2 and 4 recite
“determining the on-line status of the second process” (emphasis added).
Dependent claims 3 and 5‒7 incorporate the “on-line status” limitation from
independent claims 2 and 4. Independent claims 32 and 33 recite
maintaining a list of entries of processes “currently connected to the
Internet” and “connected to the computer network” respectively (emphases
added). Dependent claims 34‒37 incorporate the “connected to the
computer network” limitation from independent claim 33.
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

7

In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “is
connected to the computer network” has a facially clear meaning, that “the
query transmitted to the server seeks to determine whether the second unit is
connected at that time, i.e., connected at the time that the query is sent.”
Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. The Federal Circuit held that the query asks
“whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether
it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is
no longer accurate.” Id. The Federal Circuit further explained that “[i]t is
not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is
satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of
its current accuracy.” Id. The Federal Circuit explained, “[w]hen claim
language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the language does here,
leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant to the
case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably
supports a different meaning. The specification plays a more limited role
than in the common situation where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in
relevant respects.” Id. at 1361. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit construed
the limitation “is connected to the computer network” as “is connected to the
computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server.” Id.
at 1363.
Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that the limitations “on-line status,”
“currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer
network” have the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.”
See Pet. 5–6; PO Resp. 25‒33. Similar to “is connected to a computer
network,” the “on-line status,” “currently connected to the Internet,” and
“connected to the computer network” status of the second process are recited
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

8

in the present tense, and, therefore, accordingly must be determined at the
time of the query whether the second process “currently connected to the
Internet” or “connected to the computer network,” or selecting the process
having an “on-line status.” Therefore, we construe “on-line status,”
“currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer
network” as having the same meaning as “is connected to the computer
network.”

II. ANALYSIS
A. Real Party-in-Interest
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is estopped from initiating this
proceeding because Petitioner failed to identify Stalker Software, Inc.
(“Stalker Software”) as a real party-in-interest. PO Resp. 8–16. Patent
Owner asserts that Stalker Software is estopped from initiating an inter
partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.101. Id. Patent Owner argues that its
predecessor in interest, Innovative Communication Technologies, Inc.,
served a complaint on Stalker Software charging infringement of the
ʼ704 patent on February 21, 2012, and therefore, Stalker Software is
estopped from seeking inter partes review of the ʼ704 patent as of
February 21, 2013. Id. at 8–9. The Petition for this proceeding was filed on
April 11, 2013, over one year after Stalker Software was served with a
complaint. Id.
Patent Owner argues that Stalker Software is a real party-in-interest
because Petitioner is a reseller of Stalker Software’s CommuniGate Pro
software, and because Stalker Software provided Petitioner with the WINS
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

9

reference relied upon in the Petition. PO Resp. 9–11. Patent Owner
suggests that In re Guan3 controls and establishes that a real party-in-interest
“cannot do any of the following and not identify the other entity as real party
in interest: . . . 3). Allow another entity to direct or control the content, (e.g.
provide the prior patents/publications on which the reexam is to be based).”
PO Resp. 10 (quoting In re Guan at 8); see Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). Patent Owner further
submits the following “circumstantial evidence” to demonstrate Stalker
Software exercised control, or could have exercised control, of this
proceeding: (1) Petitioner relies on the testimony of two evidentiary
witnesses regarding the WINS reference that allegedly have connections to
Stalker Software that were not disclosed by Petitioner, and (2) Petitioner
maintains no presence in the United States and has refused Patent Owner’s
offer of a license to the ʼ704 patent to expand into the U.S. market. PO
Resp. 12–14. Patent Owner further requests that sanctions be imposed on
Petitioner for misrepresenting the real party-in-interest. Id. at 14–16.
Petitioner argues that In re Guan is not controlling on this issue.
Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner argues that it initiated contact with Stalker
Software only to obtain a copy of the WINS reference, and denies that
Stalker Software controls Petitioner’s participation in this proceeding. Id.;
Tr. 27:2–6, 27:17–22. Petitioner further argues that the vendor-reseller
relationship characterized by Patent Owner and the “circumstantial
evidence” provided by Patent Owner fail to demonstrate, alone or in

3 In re Guan, Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding, Control
No. 95/001,045, Decision Vacating Filing Date (Aug. 25, 2008).
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

10

combination, any control of this proceeding by Stalker Software.
Pet. Reply 2–4.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Stalker Software is a real
party-in-interest. Whether a non-party is a “real party-in-interest” or “privy”
for purposes of an inter partes review proceeding is a “highly fact-dependent
question” that takes into account how courts generally have used the terms
to “describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying
conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion.” Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759. Whether parties are real parties-in-
interest or in privity, for instance, depends on whether the relationship
between the party and its alleged real party-in-interest or privy is
“sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and
related estoppels.” Id. A number of factors may be relevant to the analysis,
including whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control
over a party’s participation in a proceeding,” and whether the non-party is
responsible for funding and directing the proceeding. Id. “The concept of
control generally means that ‘it should be enough that the nonparty has the
actual measure of control or opportunity to control that might reasonably be
expected between two formal coparties.’” Id. (quoting 18A C. Wright, A.
Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4451 (2d ed. 2011)).
Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Stalker Software exercised or
could have exercised control over Petitioner’s participation in this
proceeding. The evidence of record establishes only that Stalker Software
provided the WINS reference, at the request of Petitioner. Pet. Reply 1;
Tr. 28:3–9. This alone is insufficient to demonstrate that Stalker Software
exercised, or could have exercised, control over Petitioner’s participation in
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

11

this proceeding. Patent Owner’s evidence of the existence of a vendor-
reseller relationship between Stalker Software does not demonstrate Stalker
Software exercised, or could have exercised, any control. When a patent
holder sues a dealer, seller, or distributor of an accused product, the mere
payment of counsel fees and minor participation by the vendor in the trial
are insufficient to establish privity between the vendor and reseller. Bros,
Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co., 261 F.2d 428, 430 (5th Cir. 1958); see
generally Broadcom Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
Case IPR2013-00601, slip op. at 7, 8 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2014) (Paper 23).
Patent Owner’s assertions regarding witnesses with connections to both
Stalker Software and Petitioner, and Petitioner’s alleged lack of presence in
the U.S. market, are statements of counsel unsupported by any record
evidence, and, in any event, are not indicative of any control of this
proceeding by Stalker Software. Considering the lack of probative evidence
submitted by Patent Owner, we disagree that Stalker Software is a real party-
in-interest. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred from
initiating this proceeding, or that sanctions should be imposed on Petitioner.
B. Claims 1‒7 and 32‒42
Petitioner challenges claims 1‒7 and 32‒42 of the ’704 patent. Pet. 5‒
10, 26–28, 33‒58. We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence
and find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
1. NetBIOS (Ex. 1003)
NetBIOS (“Network Basic Input/Output System”) is a software
interface that allows applications on different computers to communicate
within a computer network, such as a local area network or the Internet, and
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

12

was originally designed for IBM’s PC-Network. Ex. 1003, 377.4 NetBIOS
applications employ mechanisms to locate resources, establish connections,
send and receive data with an application peer, and terminate connections.
Id. A NetBIOS session is the exchange of messages between a pair of
NetBIOS applications. Id. at 379.
The NetBIOS name service is the collection of procedures through
which nodes of a network acquire, defend, and locate the holders of
NetBIOS names. Id. at 394. A node registers a name with the NetBIOS
Name Server, which stores the registered name in a database. Id. at 402–03,
412. A name query transaction can be initiated by an end-node in an attempt
to obtain the IP address associated with a NetBIOS name. Id. at 406–07. If
the NetBIOS Name Server has information regarding a queried node, the
NetBIOS Name Server transmits a positive response. Id. at 407–08. If the
NetBIOS Name Server does not have information regarding a queried node,
the NetBIOS Name Server transmits a negative response. Id. Once the
IP addresses have been found for a target name, a NetBIOS session service
begins. Id. at 415. The NetBIOS session service involves directed (point-to-
point) communications. Id.
2. WINS (Ex. 1004)
WINS discloses how to install, configure, and troubleshoot
Microsoft TCP/IP on a computer running the Microsoft Windows NT

4 Exhibit 1003 includes page numbers indicated by the publication itself, and
different page numbers provided by Petitioner. Our references are to the
page numbers provided by Petitioner.
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

13

Workstation or Windows NT Server operating system. Ex. 1004, 12.5
When a computer’s name is registered with the Windows Internet Name
Service server, the Windows Internet Name Service server accepts the entry
with a timestamp, an incremental unique version number, and other
information. Id. at 74. A name query request is received by the Windows
Internet Name Service server and allows a client to establish a session based
on the address mapping received from the Windows Internet Name Service
server. Id. at 73. For example, if a first computer wants to communicate
with a second computer, the first computer queries the Windows Internet
Name Service server for the address of the second computer. Id. at 67.
When the first computer receives the appropriate address from the Windows
Internet Name Service server, it connects directly to the second computer.
Id.
3. WINS as Prior Art
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to establish WINS
was publicly available to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). PO
Resp. 54‒60. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s several supplemental
documents fail to establish the public availability of WINS. Id. at 55–57.
Patent Owner further contends that the declarations of Mr. Yuri Kolesnikov
(Ex. 1017) and Ms. Leslie Ehrlich (Ex. 1018) fail to establish that WINS
was publicly available and Petitioner’s citation to case law does not support

5 Exhibit 1004 includes page numbers indicated by the publication itself, and
different page numbers provided by Petitioner. Our references are to the
page numbers provided by Petitioner.
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

14

that Petitioner’s evidence is sufficient to establish WINS as prior art. Id. at
57–60.
Petitioner provides the testimony of Mr. Kolesnikov that WINS was
publically available and a CD version (Ex. 1019) was received by
Mr. Kolesnikov in 1994. Pet. Reply 13–14; Tr. 19:5–19; see Ex. 1017.
Mr. Kolesnikov testifies that he saw several Microsoft Windows NT 3.5
Server packages that included a print copy of WINS. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7.
Petitioner further provides the testimony of Ms. Ehrlich to establish that the
differences between WINS and the CD version are differences mostly as to
formatting. Pet. Reply 13–14; see Ex. 1018. Ms. Ehrlich testifies that
WINS and the CD version are substantially similar, noting differences in the
glossaries and formatting. Ex. 1018 ¶ 6; Ex. 2044, 16:17–24.
We are persuaded that Petitioner has established WINS as prior art.
We are persuaded that WINS was publically available in 1994.
Mr. Kolesnikov testifies to seeing printed copies of WINS and the CD
version in 1994. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7. Mr. Kolesnikov further testifies he recalls
seeing printed copies of WINS during installations he did for clients in 1994,
and is certain that it was 1994 because he switched jobs in 1995. Ex. 2043,
29:1–10, 32:21–22. Additionally, we are persuaded that the portions of
WINS relied upon by Petitioner are different from the CD version due to
formatting only. Tr. 23:1–25:8. Patent Owner’s argument consists of
alleging that Petitioner has failed to establish that WINS was publically
available and does not offer any evidence contrary to that presented by
Petitioner. Based on the evidence discussed above, we are persuaded that
Petitioner has established that WINS was publicly available in 1994, and,
therefore, qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

15

4. Analysis
As discussed in our claim construction analysis above, claims 1‒7 and
32‒42 recite the limitations “is connected to the computer network,” “on-
line status,” “currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the
computer network.” See Section I.E.1. As also discussed above, we
construe these limitations as “is connected to the computer network at the
time that the query is transmitted to the server.”
Petitioner argues that WINS discloses the use of NetBIOS for
establishing logical names and sessions on a network, and a Windows
Internet Name Service (WINS) server registers names on a network. Pet. 37,
42, 44‒45, 51 (citing Ex. 1004, 67, 73, 115). Petitioner further argues that
NetBIOS discloses name query functionality that allows nodes to determine
the address of a queried node based on whether the node has been requested
with the NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS). Id. at 36‒37, 42, 44, 50 (citing
Ex. 1003, 395, 406, 408).
Patent Owner argues that these descriptions from WINS and NetBIOS
fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the
computer network. PO Resp. 31–46. In view of our construction of this
claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a
computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name
Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database
of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a
computer is shut down properly and (2) requiring a renewal time period in
which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1004, 62–63, 75, 84, 130. WINS
discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries,
“a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

16

currently running.” Id. at 73. WINS further explains that a “local WINS
database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries
that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from
this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 148. In other words, WINS
discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are
not currently connected to the WINS network. See id. at 73, 148.
Accordingly, a query as to whether a second process “is connected to the
computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process
is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to
the server.
As discussed above in our claim construction analysis (see
Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer
network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected,
not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being
connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is
not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is
satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of
its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that
the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the
computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See
Ex. 1004, 84, 166. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the
claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” “currently
connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer network,” as
construed herein.
Similarly, NetBIOS discloses a registration process for resources or
nodes to receive a unique name by registering a name. Ex. 1003, 378.
IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

17

During a name query (discovery), a datagram is sent requesting the name
and address of another resource. Id. at 395. The NBNS maintains a
database of resource names through explicit name deletion, where the node
specifies a deletion function and implicit name deletion, which occurs when
a node ceases operation. Id. at 378. NetBIOS explains that implicit name
deletion “is a frequent occurrence.” Id. Implicit name deletion is managed
by assigning nodes a specified lifetime for registered names, where a name
is silently released if a node fails to refresh the registered name before the
lifetime expires. Id. at 396. NetBIOS further discloses a mechanism where
the NBNS may correct the information stored after an incorrect response is
provided to a requesting node. See id. at 409. However, similar to WINS,
NetBIOS discloses that the information stored by the NBNS may be
incorrect, and, therefore, will not determine whether a second process is
connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted
to the server. Therefore, NetBIOS also does not disclose the claimed “is
connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” “currently connected
to the Internet” and “connected to the computer network.”
Given that the combination of WINS and NetBIOS fails to teach or
suggest the claims as construed, we need not reach the remaining arguments
presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner.

III. CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1‒7 and 32‒42 are unpatentable.

IPR2013-00246
Patent 6,108,704 C1

18

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that, based on the grounds under review, claims 1‒7 and
32‒42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 C1 have not been shown by a
preponderance of the evidence by Petitioner to be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that this is a Final Written Decision of the
Board under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), and parties to the proceeding seeking
judicial review of this decision must comply with the notice and service
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

For PETITIONER:

Pavel Pogodin
TRANSPACIFIC LAW GROUP
Pavel@transpecificlaw.com

For PATENT OWNER:

William Meunier
Michael Newman
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHEN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND PEOPEO, PC
WAMeunier@mintz.com
StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com