PTAB

IPR2020-01043

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Hammond Development International, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Remotely Executed Application Session with a Communication Device
  • Brief Description: The ’732 patent relates to a client-server system where an application server remotely executes applications for a communication device. The server obtains these applications from a repository over a second communication link and establishes a communication session with the client device over a first communication link in response to a request.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-30 are obvious over Maes

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Maes (Patent 6,934,756), which incorporates by reference Maes 2 (International Appl. No. PCT/US99/23008). Petitioner asserted these are considered a single reference.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Maes discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Maes describes a distributed system for speech-enabled clients (e.g., smartphones) that interact with remote servers. The "browser server" in Maes was argued to be the claimed "application server," as it receives and processes VoiceXML/SpeechML pages (applications) from a "presentation server" (the claimed "repository"). Maes' server establishes a "conversational session" with a client device in response to user requests (e.g., for banking or flight information), which directly maps to the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 19. For example, Maes' server executes an application to prompt a user for information, thereby establishing the claimed communication session.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground was presented as a single-reference obviousness challenge, as Maes explicitly incorporates Maes 2 to describe the architecture and operation of its speech browser. Alternatively, under Ground 1b, Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine the references because Maes expressly suggests the combination, and the references share a common inventor and assignee, making their combination predictable.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have an expectation of success because Maes and Maes 2 describe complementary parts of a cohesive system, and the combination involves applying known techniques for their intended purpose.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 and 18-30 are obvious over Bharedwaj in view of Salomon

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bharedwaj (International Appl. No. PCT/US01/17274) and Salomon (Application # 2003/0041125).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Bharedwaj teaches a "thin client" system where a remote server executes applications downloaded over a network (the Internet). This system was argued to disclose the claimed application server, client device, and the first and second communication links. Bharedwaj's server waits for a client "request" and, in response, executes an application to "establish a session with a remote client." Petitioner argued that while Bharedwaj teaches downloading applications from the Internet, Salomon was used to explicitly teach a central repository (a "central site application server") having access to applications maintained in coupled databases.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA, starting with Bharedwaj's system that downloads applications, would be motivated to look to references like Salomon to implement a conventional and more efficient architecture for storing and retrieving those applications. Salomon's use of a central repository and database provides advantages in application management, security, and updating, which would have been desirable improvements to the Bharedwaj system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It represents the predictable integration of a known storage-and-retrieval architecture (Salomon) with a known client-server application execution system (Bharedwaj) to achieve the expected benefits of centralized application management.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including:

    • Combining Maes (and Maes 2) with Bookman (Patent 5,761,673) to further support the teaching of storing applications in a database separate from the repository server.
    • Combining the Maes references with Hammond (Patent 7,068,643) to teach a software development environment within the repository (claims 12-13).
    • Combining the Maes references with He (Patent 6,671,259) to teach load balancing among servers (claims 15-17).
    • Combining Bharedwaj, Salomon, and Braddy (Patent 8,613,048) to teach querying a user for authentication credentials (claim 3).
    • Combining Bharedwaj, Salomon, and He to teach load balancing in a server farm configuration (claims 15-17).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. The petition asserted that this inter partes review (IPR) is not co-extensive with the co-pending district court litigation, as numerous challenged claims (1-3, 6-30) are not asserted in that case. Furthermore, Petitioner argued the litigation was in its early stages, with fact and expert discovery stayed until after a recent claim construction hearing. Petitioner contended that the merits of the petition are strong and that institution would serve the interests of systemic efficiency and integrity.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’732 patent as unpatentable.