PTAB

IPR2019-00835

Microsoft Corp v. IPA Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Highly Scalable Software-Based Architecture for Communication and Cooperation Among Distributed Electronic Agents
  • Brief Description: The ’560 patent discloses an architecture for distributed electronic agents to cooperate on tasks using a common Interagent Communication Language (ICL). The system features a facilitator agent to coordinate tasks, a registry to track agent capabilities, and an ICL with distinct conversational and content layers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kiss in view of FIPA97 - Claims 1, 20-21, 26-28, and 45-49 are obvious over Kiss in view of FIPA97.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiss (Patent 6,484,155) and FIPA97 (a 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 plurality of cooperative intelligent agents, a "meta-agent" that functions as the claimed facilitator agent, an agent registry for tracking agent capabilities, and a facilitating engine that generates a goal satisfaction plan. However, Kiss lacks a detailed, robust inter-agent communication protocol. FIPA97, a well-known industry standard for agent communication, was argued to supply the specific communication language limitations that were added during prosecution to secure the patent. Specifically, FIPA97 discloses an Agent Communication Language (ACL) that constitutes the claimed "layer of conversational protocol defined by event types and parameter lists." FIPA97's "communicative acts" (e.g., "inform," "request") map to the claimed "event types," and its various message parameters (e.g., :sender, :receiver, :protocol) map to the "parameter lists." Petitioner contended that certain FIPA97 parameters, such as using a tuple of agent names in the :receiver field to multicast a message, meet the key limitation that "parameter lists further refine the one or more events" by changing the meaning of an "inform" event from "inform one" to "inform many."
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would recognize that an agent system like Kiss requires a common, robust communication protocol to function effectively. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine the Kiss system with the FIPA97 specification because FIPA97 was a well-known, predictable solution designed to provide interoperability among agent systems.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining these references, as it involved implementing a standardized communication protocol (FIPA97) within a compatible agent architecture (Kiss) to achieve the predictable result of enabling communication.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kiss, FIPA97, and Cohen - Claims 20-21 and 29-35 are obvious over Kiss in view of FIPA97 and Cohen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiss (Patent 6,484,155), FIPA97 (1997 specification), and Cohen (a 1994 paper on Open Agent Architecture).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the base combination of Kiss and FIPA97, adding Cohen to teach limitations related to complex triggers and distributed facilitator components not explicitly detailed in the primary references. Petitioner argued that Cohen's "Blackboard server" is analogous to the claimed "facilitator agent" and its facilitating engine. Cohen discloses a hierarchy of distributed blackboard servers, which was argued to teach the distributed and redundant planning components of claims 20-21 that provide a "more robust operating environment." Further, Cohen was cited for explicitly teaching a facilitator's ability to "install a trigger mechanism" (claim 29) that monitors for specific conditions (e.g., the arrival of an email about a "security break") and performs an action. This functionality was mapped to the communication triggers (claim 30), data triggers (claim 31), and task triggers (claim 34) recited in the dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would be motivated to integrate Cohen's sophisticated trigger mechanisms and distributed server architecture into the Kiss/FIPA97 framework. All three references are in the analogous art of distributed agent systems, and Cohen encourages the incorporation of components from other systems. Combining them would achieve the known benefits of improved robustness, fault-tolerance, and advanced conditional processing.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as it involved adding known functionalities (triggers, distributed servers) from a similar architecture (Cohen) to the combined Kiss/FIPA97 system to enhance its capabilities.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 28 based on the combination of Kiss, FIPA97, and Cheyer (a 1998 paper), arguing Cheyer explicitly taught the use of "data declarations" and "trigger declarations" within an agent registry.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "layer of conversational protocol": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a set of rules and standards governing the semantics of messages between agents." This construction was central to arguing that FIPA97's ACL provides the specific semantic rules required by the claims, distinguishing it from merely the content of a message.
  • "wherein the parameter lists further refine the one or more events": Petitioner proposed this phrase means "a list of parameters associated with an event can refine the event by affecting the meaning of the event." This construction was critical, as this claim language was added during prosecution to overcome prior art. Petitioner argued that FIPA97's parameters—such as a :protocol parameter that alters the meaning of a "call for proposals" performative—affect the semantic meaning of the message's communicative act (the "event") and thus satisfy this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 20-21, 26-35, and 45-49 as unpatentable.