Microsoft Corp v. IPA Technologies Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00814
• Patent #: 6,851,115
• Filed: March 19, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): IPA Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 61-85

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Software-Based Architecture for Communication and Cooperation Among Distributed Electronic Agents
• Brief Description: The ’115 patent discloses a system and method for coordinating tasks among distributed software agents. The system uses a proprietary Inter-agent Communication Language (ICL) with a conversational protocol layer and a content layer to facilitate communication of complex goals between a central "facilitator agent" and other service-providing agents.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 61-63 and 70-85 are obvious over Kiss in view of FIPA97

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiss (Patent 6,484,155) and FIPA97 (1997 FIPA v. 1.0 Specification).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kiss discloses the foundational architecture of the challenged claims, including a knowledge management system with a facilitator agent (meta-agent), a plurality of cooperative service-providing agents, and an agent registry for declaring agent capabilities. However, Kiss lacks the specific, detailed Inter-agent Communication Language (ICL) structure that was added to the claims of the ’115 patent during prosecution to secure allowance. Petitioner asserted that FIPA97, an industry standard for agent communication, supplies these missing ICL features. FIPA97 was argued to disclose a two-layer communication protocol with a conversational layer (defined by "communicative acts," analogous to the claimed "event types") and a content layer. FIPA97 also allegedly teaches parameter lists that can refine the semantic meaning of a message, directly corresponding to a key limitation added to overcome examiner rejections.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kiss and FIPA97 because the agent system in Kiss inherently requires a robust communication protocol to function. FIPA97 provided a well-known, standardized, and publicly available solution designed specifically to ensure interoperability among disparate agent systems. Implementing the FIPA97 standard in the Kiss architecture was presented as a predictable and logical design choice to achieve efficient and reliable inter-agent communication, representing the application of a known technique (FIPA97) to a known system (Kiss) to yield predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references operate in the same field of distributed agent computing. Combining a system architecture with a compatible communication standard was a conventional and well-understood practice in the art at the time.

Ground 2: Claims 64-70 and 84-85 are obvious over Kiss in view of FIPA97 and Cohen

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiss (Patent 6,484,155), FIPA97 (1997 FIPA v. 1.0 Specification), and Cohen (a 1994 publication titled "An Open Agent Architecture").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Kiss/FIPA97 combination to address claims requiring a specific "trigger mechanism." Petitioner argued that while Kiss/FIPA97 established the overall system, Cohen was necessary to teach a facilitator agent operable to install triggers that request an action when a set of conditions is met. Cohen's "Blackboard server" was presented as analogous to the claimed facilitator agent, which processes conditional requests (e.g., "When mail arrives about a security break, get it to me") by installing a trigger on a relevant service-providing agent (e.g., a mail agent). This functionality was argued to directly map to the limitations of claims 64-69, which recite various communication, data, and task triggers.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Cohen’s teachings into the Kiss/FIPA97 system to add sophisticated, event-driven functionality. Cohen’s architecture was designed to be open and to support the integration of external components, and its blackboard server provided a known and effective model for implementing complex trigger logic. Adding this capability would enhance the Kiss/FIPA97 system’s ability to automate responses to dynamic events, a clear advantage for a cooperative agent environment. The combination was framed as an arrangement of old elements, each performing its known function.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because integrating a trigger-handling module (as taught by Cohen) into a distributed agent system was a known design pattern. The components were all well-known in the field, making their integration straightforward for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "wherein the parameter lists further refine the one or more events": Petitioner argued this phrase, added during prosecution to distinguish over the prior art KQML language, must be construed to mean that parameters alter the fundamental semantic meaning of the event (the message's purpose or action), not merely provide context or modify the message's content. For example, a "solution_limit(N)" parameter in the ’115 patent changes a request from asking for one solution to asking for 'N' solutions, thus refining the event's meaning. Petitioner argued FIPA97's parameters, such as the ":receiver" parameter that can change an "inform" message from a single-cast to a multi-cast, function in this same semantic-altering way, unlike the contextual parameters shown in the prior art of record.
• "layer of conversational protocol": Proposed as "a set of rules and standards governing the semantics of messages between agents." This construction emphasizes that the protocol governs the meaning and structure of the communication itself, separate from the substantive content being conveyed.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 61-85 of the ’115 patent as unpatentable.