Unified Patents Incv.CRFD Research, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2015

09953408 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
571-272-7822 Entered: April 30, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

CRFD RESEARCH, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

2
Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8–11, 13–15, 23–25, 29–31,
and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,191,233 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’233 patent”)
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. Patent Owner CRFD Research, Inc. filed
a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may
not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition
and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not
to institute an inter partes review.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The ’233 Patent
1

The ’233 patent describes a system and method for “user-directed
transfer of an on-going software-based session from one device to another
device.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 8–11. A user may have a number of
communication-enabled devices (e.g., cellular telephone, wireless personal
digital assistant (PDA), laptop computer, desktop computer) through which
the user conducts software application sessions. Id. at col. 1, ll. 15–52. The
user may conduct a session on one device and then decide to switch to
another device. Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–59. For example, the user may want to
switch from a stationary device to a mobile device, or switch to a device
with a different graphical user interface. Id. According to the ’233 patent,

1
The ’233 patent also is the subject of Cases IPR2015-00055,
IPR2015-00259, and IPR2015-00627.
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

3
conventional systems that required the user to “discontinue the current
session on the first device and reinitiate a new session on the second device”
were inadequate due to the history of the original session being lost and the
time delay in logging off and reinitiating. Id. at col. 1, ll. 59–66.
Figure 1 of the ’233 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts wireless clients 120 (e.g., a cellular telephone or PDA) and
wired clients 125 (e.g., a desktop or laptop computer) of a user that connect
over various networks to application services network 105. Id. at col. 4,
ll. 4–11, 30–33, col. 5, ll. 3–6. Wireless clients 120 and wired clients 125
execute client programs that support session services for the respective
devices, and are “configured to have a preferred mode of interaction,
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

4
i.e., modality,” such as a graphical user interface for transferring sessions
between devices. Id. at col. 4, ll. 33–50. Application services network 105
provides session-based services (e.g., instant messaging, database querying),
and application server 140 provides applications for those services
(e.g., instant messaging application, database querying application), to
wireless clients 120 and wired clients 125. Id. at col. 5, ll. 21–30.
The ’233 patent describes the method of session transfer as follows:
(1) a “redirect or transfer command” is sent from a first device (wireless
client 120 or wired client 125); (2) session server 145 begins intercepting
messages destined for the first device; (3) the first device transmits a
“transaction or session history” to session server 145; (4) session server 145
retrieves the previously stored “device profile” of the second device to
which the session is to be redirected, “convert[s] the messages [of the
session history] into a data format” and/or modality compatible with the
second device, and converts the “state” of the session to a state compatible
with the second device; and (5) when the user activates the second device,
session server 145 “pushes the converted session to the redirected device
over the network 100 as a normal session with the converted transaction
log.” Id. at col. 7, l. 46–col. 8, l. 58.

B. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 of the ’233 patent recites:
1. A method for redirecting an on-going, software based
session comprising:
conducting a session with a first device;
specifying a second device;
discontinuing said session on said first device; and
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

5
transmitting a session history of said first device from
said first device to a session transfer module after said session
is discontinued on said first device; and
resuming said session on said second device with said
session history.

C. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
U.S. Patent No. 5,008,930, issued April 16, 1991
(Ex. 1002, “Gawrys”);
U.S. Patent No. 5,550,906, issued August 27, 1996
(Ex. 1006, “Chau”);
U.S. Patent No. 5,737,592, issued April 7, 1998
(Ex. 1007, “Nguyen”); and
U.S. Patent No. 5,796,812, issued August 18, 1998
(Ex. 1003, “Hanlon”).

D. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 1–6, 8–11, 13–15, 23–25, 29–31, and 34
of the ’233 patent on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Gawrys and
Hanlon
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1–3, 13, 14, 23, and
24
Gawrys,
Hanlon, Chau,
and Nguyen
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4–6, 8–11, 15, 25,
29–31, and 34

IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

6
E. Claim Interpretation
The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard, we
interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary
meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted). However, a patentee may rebut this presumption
by acting as his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the
specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The ’233 patent also is challenged in Case IPR2015-00055. For the
reasons stated in the Decision on Institution in that proceeding, we interpret
three claim terms as follows:
Claim Term Interpretation
“modality” a preferred mode of interaction
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

7
Claim Term Interpretation
“device profile” information pertaining to the operation of a
device, such as the data format or modality of
the device
“in response to . . .
activation of said
second device”
in response to the second device being made
active, such as by a user logging on to the
second device
See Iron Dome LLC v. CRFD Research, Inc., IPR2015-00055, slip op. at
6–10 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015) (Paper 10).
We also interpret the term “session.” Petitioner argues that “session”
should be interpreted to mean “information exchange between two
communicating devices.” Pet. 14. Petitioner contends that the Specification
of the ’233 patent uses the term broadly, as shown in the following portion
of the Specification:
The application services network 105 may be configured
to provide a variety of services to the wireless and wired clients,
120 and 125, respectively. These services may include
session-based services such [as] instant messaging, database
querying, and other similar services. The supporting
applications of these session based-services may be provided by
an application server 140. The application server 140 may be
configured to provide an application such as [an] instant
messaging application, a web application, a database querying
application, and other similar applications. The application
server 140 may be implemented by any number of
commercially available servers or high performance computers.
Because the specific type of session to be used in the present
invention will vary according to individual needs, the present
invention is not limited to any specific type of session and may
thus utilize any type of session that may be provided to a user
which may reasonably accomplish the goals of the present
invention.
. . .
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

8
The session server 145 may be configured to provide
session-based services to the users of the wireless and wired
clients, 120 and 125. A session-based service may be an instant
messaging service, messaging service, a database query, a Web
browsing session, and the like.
Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 21–38, 44–48 (emphasis added); see Pet. 14. Patent
Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed interpretation in its
Preliminary Response.
The ordinary meaning of “session” is “[t]he time during which a
program is running” or, “[i]n communications, the time during which two
computers maintain a connection.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 405
(4th ed. 1999) (Ex. 3001).
2
As used in the claims, however, “session” does
not refer merely to the time period when something occurs, but rather to
what occurs during that time period. For example, claims 1 and 2 specify
that the “session” must be something capable of being “conduct[ed]” with a
first device, “discontinu[ed]” on the first device, “push[ed]” to a second
device, and “resum[ed]” on the second device; claim 7 recites blocking,
storing, and reformatting messages “of” the session; and claim 13 recites
providing a “session service.”
The Specification of the ’233 patent reflects that usage of “session”
as well. The Specification discloses that a “typical user may have a desktop
computer system to perform information transactions (or sessions) such as
sending/receiving electronic mail, . . . browsing the Internet for information
and communicating via instant messaging.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 19–23
(emphasis added); see also id. at col. 1, ll. 15–52 (describing a series of

2
The dictionary definition cited herein was provided as Exhibit 1009 in
related Cases IPR2015-00259 and IPR2015-00627. We express no opinion
at this time on the merits of the petitions in those proceedings.
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

9
“information transactions”), col. 5, l. 3–col. 7, l. 61 (describing a series of
“messages of the session” transmitted between communicating devices
“during a session”). Session server 145 provides “session-based services,”
such as “an instant messaging service, messaging service, a database query,
a Web browsing session, and the like,” to wireless clients 120 and wired
clients 125, and application server 140 provides applications for those
services. Id. at col. 5, ll. 21–30, 44–48. Session server 145 includes session
manager 205, which “determin[es] the type of services available to a user,
the number of sessions, [and] load-balancing of the sessions,” and session
handler module 210, which authenticates and acknowledges the “messages
transmitted . . . during a session.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 34–45. On this record,
applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the
Specification, we interpret “session” to mean a series of information
transactions between communicating devices during a particular time period.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Obviousness Ground Based on Gawrys and Hanlon
Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 13, 14, 23, and 24 are
unpatentable over Gawrys and Hanlon under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pet. 17–22, 32–49. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted ground for the reasons
explained below.

1. Gawrys
Gawrys describes an “automated integrated voice/data call transfer
technique” for an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) system that
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

10
allows “an agent answering a call to obtain caller related information from a
communication system, automatically send it to a host database computer
system application software, retrieve caller records [from the host database]
. . . and then transfer the voice and collected data information to a preferred
agent terminal for continuing the call.” Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 7–16. For
example, an agent handling a 1-800 call from a customer may want to
transfer the call to a supervisor, and have the call continue such that the
supervisor sees the same information as was displayed to the original agent.
Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–56, col. 2, ll. 28–40.
Figure 1 of Gawrys is reproduced below.

IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

11
As shown in Figure 1, caller 12 communicates via communications network
11 and private branch exchange (PBX) 13 with agent terminal 14, which
comprises telephone 22 and terminal screen 23. Id. at col. 3, l. 49–col. 4,
l. 66. Agent terminal 14 retrieves customer records and other information
from host computer systems 18/19 (automatically or upon agent input to
terminal screen 23 during the call) and displays the information on terminal
screen 23. Id. at col. 4, l. 67–col. 5, l. 41. Gawrys describes a process for
transferring a call from one agent to another whereby the first agent terminal
sends User-To-User Information (UUI) comprising, among other things, an
index number reflecting the current state of the call. Id. at col. 9,
l. 60–col. 10, l. 11. PBX 13 then transmits the UUI to the second agent
terminal, which retrieves information from host computer systems 18/19
using the index number and continues the call. Id. at col. 10, ll. 12–30.

2. Hanlon
Similar to Gawrys, Hanlon describes a method of transferring a call
from one party to another, while maintaining information about the call, so
that information the caller provided to the first party does not need to be
repeated to the second party. See Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 13–40.
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

12
Figure 1 of Hanlon is reproduced below.

As shown in Figure 1, calling party 12 initiates a call to re-directing party 14
that is routed through Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) 18, originating switch
(OS) 20, adjunct processor 28, terminating switch (TS) 26, and TS 24. Id. at
col. 2, ll. 14–43. Re-directing party 14 and target party 16 have ISDN links
to adjunct processor 28. Id. at col. 2, ll. 48–49, col. 3, ll. 20–24. When
re-directing party 14 decides to re-direct the call to target party 16, it sends
an “out-of band signal” to TS 26 (via TS 24). Id. at col. 2, ll. 44–54. The
out-of band signal comprises a User-To-User Interface Information Element
(UUI IE) containing “call-specific data,” such as information received by
re-directing party 24 during the call (e.g., the caller’s address or account
number). Id. at col. 3, ll. 20–36. Adjunct processor 28 then “causes the TS
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

13
26 to set-up a call to the target party 16 via the TS 29 while placing the
calling party on hold,” and “[o]nce the target party 16 has answered, the
re-directing party 14 may wish to engage in a conversation before signaling
the TS 26 to remove the caller from hold and merge the call paths to
re-direct the call to the target party.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 6–14. Hanlon describes
various scenarios by which target party 16 receives the call-specific data
from TS 26 and continues the call. Id. at col. 3, l. 44–col. 4, l. 21.

3. Analysis
Petitioner relies on Gawrys as teaching all of the limitations of claim 1
other than the limitation that the session history is transmitted from the first
device “after said session is discontinued on said first device” (the “after
discontinuing” limitation). Pet. 17. With respect to that limitation,
Petitioner asserts that the call-specific data in Hanlon “may be transmitted
by the re-directing party to effect data transfer after the call is re-directed,”
citing the statement at column 4, lines 8–15 of Hanlon that the call-specific
data can be sent by the re-directing party “after call re-direction.” Id. at 42.
3

Petitioner further asserts that in Hanlon, “[u]pon requesting a call transfer,
the call is redirected, discontinuing the session, and the call-specific data is
then transferred.” Id. at 19–20. Thus, Petitioner’s position appears to be
that re-direction of a call in Hanlon amounts to discontinuing a “session,”

3
Petitioner cites the Declaration of John D. Day (Ex. 1005) in support of its
contentions. Mr. Day’s analysis regarding the “after discontinuing”
limitation, however, appears to be identical to the discussion in the Petition.
Compare Ex. 1005, 21–22, 37–39, with Pet. 19–20, 40–42; see also Pet. 32
(acknowledging that Mr. Day’s claim charts are “substantially the same” as
what is asserted in the Petition).
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

14
and that transmission of the call-specific data from the re-directing party
“after call re-direction,” therefore, satisfies the limitation of claim 1.
We do not agree with Petitioner’s reading of Hanlon. As Patent
Owner points out, Hanlon describes—at multiple places in its written
description and claims—three distinct scenarios by which the re-directing
party transmits the call-specific data. See Prelim. Resp. 7–13. First, the
call-specific data may be sent “as part of call set up to the target party,”
whereby the re-directing party requests that the call be set up with the target
party and “wish[es] to remain on the call following call re-direction.” See
Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 65–66, col. 3, l. 63–col. 4, l. 10, claims 2, 6. Second, the
call-specific data may be sent as part of a message requesting that the
portion of the call path between the re-directing party and caller be
terminated. See id. at col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 1, col. 3, ll. 49–62, col. 4, l. 10,
claims 3, 7. Third, the call-specific data may be sent “as part of a message
generated by the re-directing party 14 to effect data transfer after call
re-direction.” See id. at col. 2, ll. 2–5, col. 4, ll. 10–21, claims 4, 8.
Petitioner relies on the third scenario where transmission occurs “after
call re-direction.” Pet. 42. In that scenario, however, the call-specific data
are “sent during such time that the call paths between the caller and the
re-directing party 14 and between the re-directing party and the target party
remain connected.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 2–5 (emphasis added); see also id.,
claims 4 (“the out-of-band call-specific data-containing message is a
message for effecting transfer of data from the re-directing party to the target
party after call set-up to the target party but prior to call disconnection from
the re-directing party”) (emphasis added), 8. Thus, after a call is re-directed
in Hanlon, the calling party, re-directing party, and target party remain
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

15
connected in a three-way call, and the re-directing party may send
call-specific data to the TS for relaying to the target party so that the target
party has the information as well. The re-directing party may stay on the
three-way call or “drop off after effecting call re-direction.” Id. at col. 3,
ll. 6–198, 63–64, col. 4, ll. 10–21.
Petitioner’s argument equating call re-direction with discontinuation
of a session is not persuasive. As explained above, we interpret “session” to
mean a series of information transactions between communicating devices
during a particular time period. See supra Section I.E. After a call is
re-directed in Hanlon, re-directing party 14 remains on the call and may
continue communicating data to and from TS 26 (i.e., may continue its series
of information transactions), at least until re-directing party 14 affirmatively
drops off the call and ends its connection to TS 26. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that because Hanlon discloses
transmission “after call re-direction,” the transmission occurs after a session
on the re-directing party device has been discontinued.
We also have considered Petitioner’s arguments as to why a person of
ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have had reason to combine
Hanlon’s teachings with those of Gawrys. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1005
¶¶ 24–25). Specifically, Petitioner argues that the references disclose similar
systems designed to solve the same problem, and that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two references to
“ensure session integrity.” Id. Petitioner asserts:
If the session with the first device continued after the session
history were transferred to the second device, then when the
session resumed on the second device, the session history
would not reflect the latest state of the session on the first
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

16
device, resulting in a resumption of the session that may not
behave properly. A more robust session transfer system would
discontinue the session on the first device before transmitting
the session history to the second device, thus ensuring a smooth
transfer. The benefits and need to discontinue the session on
the first device before transmitting the session history to the
second device would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
Id. at 21. These arguments also are not persuasive. We do not agree that
Hanlon teaches the “after discontinuing” limitation; therefore, Petitioner’s
asserted combination of the two references would not yield the method of
claim 1. Further, Petitioner does not point to any evidence supporting its
assertions (other than the Declaration of Mr. Day, which mirrors the
Petition) that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to make the
combination, or explain in any detail why the disclosures of Gawrys and
Hanlon would have suggested the “after discontinuing” limitation. See id.
at 21; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to claim 1.
Similar to claim 1, independent claims 13 and 23 recite transmitting a
session history from a first device “after said session is discontinued on said
first device.” For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that the
limitation is taught by the combination of Gawrys and Hanlon. Thus,
Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
assertion that claims 1, 13, and 23, as well as claims 2, 3, 14, and 24
depending therefrom, are unpatentable over Gawrys and Hanlon.

B. Obviousness Ground Based on Gawrys, Hanlon, Chau, and Nguyen
Petitioner contends that claims 4–6, 8–11, 15, 25, 29–31, and 34 are
unpatentable over Gawrys, Hanlon, Chau, and Nguyen under 35 U.S.C.
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

17
§ 103(a). Pet. 22–32, 49–60. Claims 4–6, 8–11, 15, 25, and 29–31 depend,
directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1, 13, or 23. As explained
above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Gawrys and Hanlon teach
transmitting a session history from a first device “after said session is
discontinued on said first device.” See supra Section II.A. With respect to
claim 34, which includes the same limitation, Petitioner relies on its
assertions as to Hanlon and claim 13. Pet. 60. Thus, Petitioner has not
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
claims 4–6, 8–11, 15, 25, 29–31, and 34 are unpatentable over Gawrys,
Hanlon, Chau, and Nguyen.

C. Conclusion
We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’233 patent is
unpatentable based on the asserted grounds. Therefore, we do not institute
an inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the
challenged claims.

III. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’233 patent.
IPR2015-00157
Patent 7,191,233 B2

18
PETITIONER:

Michael L. Kiklis
Scott A. McKeown
OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
CPdocketkiklis@oblon.com
cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com

PATENT OWNER:

Tarek N. Fahmi
ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com