PTAB

IPR2019-01667

Apple Inc v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Title: Group Audio Message Board
Brief Description: The ’252 patent discloses a communal audio message recordal system where multiple users can record and access audio messages. Access is controlled by requiring a user to have a "qualifying parameter," such as a time and/or date, that matches a parameter associated with the recorded message.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Moran (Patent 5,717,869).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Moran discloses a system for recording and accessing group meetings ("sessions") that include audio "timestreams." Moran teaches using temporal "control events" to enable or deny access to these recorded sessions based on user, time, and access type (e.g., playback, append). For example, Moran discloses denying access to non-attendees for a week to allow a meeting chair to edit records. Petitioner asserted these time-based control events are analogous to the ’252 patent's "qualifying parameter." Moran’s system generates and stores timestamps and control events in a database, which Petitioner mapped to the claim limitation of "generating and storing...at least one qualifying parameter."
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Moran teaches all elements of claim 1, relying on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to implement the disclosed temporal controls by encoding them in a database, a step for which the ’252 patent itself provides no specific guidance.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Moran (Patent 5,717,869) and Bertino (a 1998 article titled "An Access Control Model Supporting Periodicity Constraints and Temporal Reasoning").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Moran only provides a high-level concept of temporal access control, Bertino supplies the specific implementation details. Bertino discloses a detailed model for encoding temporal access controls in a database. It uses a formal structure that explicitly defines temporal bounds ([begin, end]), users, objects, and access modes (e.g., read/write), which Petitioner argued would allow a POSITA to readily implement the control events described in Moran.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA implementing Moran's system, where users are "very concerned" about access control, would combine Moran with Bertino. Both are analogous art addressing access control in databases based on user, object, time, and access type. A POSITA would look to known database models like Bertino’s to implement the functionality described in Moran.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a well-defined database access model (Bertino) to a system requiring such controls (Moran), a predictable task in the field of database programming.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Moran (Patent 5,717,869), Bertino (a 1998 article), and TLS 1.0 (RFC 2246).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this ground for a narrower claim interpretation requiring different qualifying parameters for accessing the recorder versus accessing the messages. The combination of Moran and Bertino provides the temporal qualifying parameter for accessing specific messages. TLS 1.0, a standard network security protocol, provides a separate qualifying parameter for accessing the recorder itself. Petitioner argued the TLS handshake protocol generates a "master secret," which serves as a qualifying parameter to establish an authenticated, secure connection to the system before any message-level access is considered.
- Motivation to Combine: Moran discloses a networked system where users are concerned about access to sensitive "literal records" of their conversations. A POSITA would combine the Moran/Bertino system with a standard security protocol like TLS 1.0 to provide necessary encryption and authentication over the network, preventing eavesdropping and ensuring data integrity.
- Expectation of Success: Integrating a standard security protocol like TLS 1.0 into a networked application was a routine and well-understood task for a POSITA, ensuring a predictable result.

"audio data recorder": Petitioner proposed this term means "a device that stores audio data" and does not require the capability to capture audible sound (e.g., a microphone). This construction allows Moran's storage device, which is separate from its audio capture devices, to meet the limitation.
"qualifying parameter": Petitioner argued that a single parameter, such as time, could satisfy all instances of this term in the claim (i.e., for accessing the recorder and for matching to access a message). Ground 3 was presented as an alternative in case the Board adopted a narrower construction requiring distinct parameters for device access versus message access.
"...for a user recording a message and for a user requesting playback...": Petitioner argued the plain meaning of this phrase requires the qualifying parameter to apply to both present recording and present playback activities, not to a past event (e.g., the time a message was recorded).

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d), asserting that the General Plastic and Becton Dickinson factors favor institution.
The core arguments were that this petition is not duplicative of two prior IPRs filed against the ’252 patent because: (1) Petitioner is not a real-party-in-interest or privy to the prior petitioners; (2) the petition relies on entirely different prior art (Moran, Bertino, TLS 1.0); (3) the challenge is presented under different proposed claim constructions; and (4) the filing was a direct result of Patent Owner’s litigation activities against Petitioner.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 1 of the ’252 patent as unpatentable.