PTAB

IPR2014-00082

Apple Inc v. Evolutionary Intelligence

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers
Brief Description: The ’536 patent discloses a computer system and method for managing information using logically defined data structures called "containers." These containers are associated with a plurality of "registers" that store data and govern the container's interactions with other system components through a "gateway."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Katz (Patent 6,496,872)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Katz, which describes a system for scheduling and executing automated tasks on a computer, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Katz’s "task file" and "task folder" data structures were asserted to be the claimed "plurality of containers." The various data fields and objects associated with a task, such as trigger objects and trigger instance lists, were identified as the claimed "plurality of registers." Petitioner mapped Katz’s time-based scheduling data (e.g., time for a task to occur) to the claimed "active time register," "passive time register," and "neutral time register." The software components in Katz that execute tasks, such as the launcher instance, were equated with the claimed "gateway." Dependent claims were also allegedly met, with Katz’s task logging feature corresponding to the "container history register" of claim 3 and its network interaction capabilities meeting the "system history register" of claim 4.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Chou (Patent 5,902,352)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Chou, which discloses a system for scheduling tasks like application startup and termination, also anticipates all challenged claims. Chou’s "scheduling database" and associated log and checkpoint databases were presented as the claimed "plurality of containers." The data fields within Chou's scheduling records (e.g., action identification, start time, end time) were mapped to the "plurality of registers." Petitioner argued that Chou's various time-based fields, which govern task execution, inherently disclose the claimed "active," "passive," and "neutral" time registers. The "InstantON agent" in Chou, which controls and executes scheduled tasks, was identified as the claimed "gateway." For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Chou's "log database" meets the "container history register" (claim 3) and its checkpoint functionality, which writes data from an application into a database, meets the "acquire register" (claim 8).
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative obviousness challenges for claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 over Katz, and for claims 5 and 7 over Chou, each in view of the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. These arguments contended that if any minor element was found to be missing from the primary references, its inclusion would have been a common sense and obvious modification.

Container: Petitioner argued for a broad construction of "container" as any "logically defined data structure" that contains digital elements, system components, or other containers. This construction was supported by the patent’s specification and intended to encompass data structures like the "task file" in Katz and the "scheduling database" in Chou.
Register: Petitioner proposed that "register" should be construed broadly as "a value or code associated with a container." This was intended to cover the various data fields and parameters described in the prior art that are associated with a task or data record.
Gateway: Petitioner argued that "gateway" should be construed as "code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter registers." This construction was supported by the patent owner’s litigation contentions and was broad enough to read on software components like the "launcher instance" in Katz and the "InstantON agent" in Chou.

Indefiniteness of Means-Plus-Function Claims: Petitioner contended that claims 9-12, which recite means-plus-function limitations (e.g., "means for acting upon another container"), are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112. The core contention was that the ’536 patent specification fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm or specific structure for performing the claimed functions, identifying only a general-purpose processor. While not a basis for an IPR, Petitioner raised this to frame its invalidity analysis, proceeding on the assumption that the "means" corresponds to at least a processor executing the recited function.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 3-15 as unpatentable.