Plank...Yeah, I got all that

Anyway....

RE: construction...

C. “social hierarchy”

The term “social hierarchy” should be construed as “an arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of levels.” This is similar to the construction adopted by the Court in the related District Court case.

Again, Owner believes this is the BRI of that term.

Owner notes that the Board has proposed a construction of the term “social hierarchy” in two related IPR decisions. [???] (See Case Nos. IPR2015-01471, Paper 11, at p.7 and IPR2015-01475, Paper 11, at p. 8.)

However, the common specification of the patents as well as certain claims of other patents in the patent family that are not subject to the pending group of IPRs make clear that a social hierarchy is not limited to a hierarchy of people and may involve a hierarchy of operations.

The common specification of disputed patents provides that a “social hierarchy” can include not only persons, but also the quantity, and type of delivery, of information made available to different persons.

For example, the specification describes an “emergency” embodiment, wherein members of the various levels of the social hierarchy receive information through different operations:

“By way of example, the social template could be designated for emergency situations, and automatically provide information to the police, fire department, family and/or friends. Such communication could be through text messages, emails, computer read messages sent to a voice line, and, where social networking service and/or microblog are set up, through networking service and microblog updates. In this way, the device 100, 200 would be able to summon help in an emergency situation according to a status sensed from the various device sensors 110, 120, 130, 140.”

(Ex. 1001 at 21:4-14 (emphasis added).)

Moreover, certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,002,331 (“the ’331 patent”) [ not being a patent in the current IPR patent group] expressly disclose a hierarchy of “operations.” (See Ex. 2014 at claims 1, 17 and 21.) Specifically, claim 1 teaches in pertinent part:

“a) a first set of one or more operations to be performed using a first data for a first set of target devices within a first social level, and [¶]

b) a second set of one or more operations, different from the first set of one or more operations to be performed using a second data for a second set of target devices within a second social level.” (Id. at claim 1.)

Here, the social hierarchy of the related ’331 patent is not a hierarchy of people, but of operations. Likewise, the limitation does not require the conveyance or receipt of information. Lastly, while the quoted claim limitation speaks of a “first set of … operations” and a “second set of … operations,” the claim is indifferent as to any order. All the claim requires is that the operations between the two levels be different.

Finally, while certain claims throughout the family of patents may contain limitations similar to those contained in Petitioner’s and the Board’s offered constructions, it would be improper to incorporate them into the construction of the broader term “social hierarchy” where the specification and claims from other patents in the patent family contemplate a broader application.

They are splitting hairs over the construction of “social hierarchy” should be construed as “an arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of levels.”

where 331 "expressly disclose a hierarchy of “operations.”

RE: construction

D. “level of [a] social hierarchy” Despite offering a construction of “social hierarchy,” Petitioners propose a separate construction of the term “level of a social hierarchy.” Owner submits that construction of this term is wholly unnecessary. The term “level” has a plain and ordinary meaning. Furthermore, the parties competing constructions of the term “social hierarchy,” regardless of which construction is adopted, each make clear what would constitute a “level of a social hierarchy” as disclosed by the inventor. Petitioners’ proposed construction of this term, “a grouping of people that receives information,” should be rejected for the same reasons set forth above.

"regardless of which construction is adopted"

In view of ...patent 331, one can anticipate what that comment considers...They have all the bases covered...they'd just like to have things simplified and deal with infringement, for the moment, for everyone with one consolidated patent.

Looks to me we have things covered.... regardless

As for the Robarts IP (MSFT) ....that looks to be a non issue....by way of Williams depositions... he over sold himself and, he over sold the prior art issues by way of his over selling himself....and not understanding what the stand alone prior art issues were all about.

Its looking good...I just do not know how we fit politically....to get the consolidation covered. lol

doni