PTAB

IPR2015-01371

Amazon.com Inc v. SimpleAir Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Transmission of Data
  • Brief Description: The ’279 patent discloses a system for providing data notifications (e.g., for news or email) to remote computing devices. The system's central feature is its ability to transmit these notifications over a wireless broadcast network (such as a pager network) to a device, regardless of whether that device is online or offline via a separate data connection like the Internet.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hays and Pepe - Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 29, 35-38, 40-41, 43, 45-46, and 63 are obvious over Hays in view of Pepe.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hays (Application # 08/215,817) and Pepe (Patent 5,742,905).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hays taught the core invention: a telecommunication system that sends messages to a mobile device using two different channels, a cellular network and a paging network. Hays' system, comprising a "message manager" and a Universal Messaging System (UMS), was alleged to meet the limitations of the ’279 patent’s "central broadcast server" that processes and transmits data to remote devices whether they are online or offline. Hays also disclosed providing visual and audio alerts. Pepe was introduced to supply the missing element of using a subscriber database for message routing and protocol translation. Pepe described a personal communications interface that translates emails into pager messages by querying a subscriber database to determine how to process and format the message for the paging network.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Hays and Pepe to improve the functionality of Hays' system. Since both references were in the same field of mobile and paging messaging and addressed similar problems, a POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Pepe’s more sophisticated subscriber database and message translation methods into Hays’ dual-channel notification architecture. This combination would predictably result in a more robust system capable of handling various incoming message types for transmission over a paging network.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying Pepe’s known database and protocol translation techniques to Hays’ known notification system, which would have presented no technical difficulties and would have been expected to function as intended.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Kane - Claims 1-4, 12, 29, 35-38, 46, and 63 are anticipated by Kane.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kane (Patent 5,487,100).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kane disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Kane described a system for transmitting information to a remote unit through two distinct channels: a wireless paging network ("Path B") and a dial-up public switched telephone network ("Path A"). Petitioner mapped Kane's "central terminal 102" to the claimed "central broadcast server," arguing it received data from various information sources (including an X.400 email network), processed the data by creating a "message record," and broadcasted it over the paging network. This transmission occurred regardless of whether the remote unit's modem was online via the dial-up connection. Kane’s system used a controller and paging encoder, which Petitioner alleged perform the functions of the claimed "information gateway" and "transmission gateway" by building data blocks, assigning pager addresses from a subscriber database, and preparing messages for wireless transmission.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 3) against claims 6-9, 11, 13, 30, 40-43, 45, 47, 51, and 64 based on Kane. This ground argued that even if Kane did not explicitly disclose certain features, such as the central server comprising a "network of servers" or using an "alert panel," these would have been obvious design choices or modifications to a POSITA based on the teachings of Kane itself and common knowledge at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that its unpatentability arguments hold under the constructions proposed by either Petitioner or Patent Owner in related district court litigation. For several key terms, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner's proposed constructions for the purposes of the petition, as they were broader.

  • "central broadcast server": Petitioner proposed "one or more servers that transmit data packets over a wireless broadcast network to both on- and off-line computers." This construction was central to mapping the prior art systems, which used central terminals or message managers to broadcast over paging networks, to the claimed invention.
  • "information gateway" / "transmission gateway": Petitioner noted that while it had proposed means-plus-function constructions in district court, for the IPR it would adopt Patent Owner’s broader proposal of "one or more software programs..." that perform the recited functions (e.g., building data blocks, preparing data for transmission). This strategic choice was intended to broaden the scope of applicable prior art.
  • "data channel associated with each device": Petitioner proposed "a path through which the device connects to the Internet or other online service." This construction was used to argue that the cellular or dial-up connections in the prior art (Hays and Kane, respectively) met this limitation, even if they were not always active.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 17, 29-30, 35-43, 45, 51, and 63-64 of the ’279 patent as unpatentable.