PTAB

IPR2020-01043

Amazon.com Inc v. Hammond Development Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Initiating a Communication Session
  • Brief Description: The ’732 patent describes a client-server system where a remote application server executes an application for a client device. The server retrieves the application from a repository over a second communication link and establishes a communication session with the client over a first communication link in response to a client 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 argued these should be treated as a single reference.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Maes discloses every element of the challenged claims. Maes describes a client-server architecture for speech-enabled applications where a client device (e.g., a smartphone) communicates with a remote "browser server" (the claimed "application server"). This browser server receives and processes VoiceXML or SpeechML pages (the "applications") from a "presentation server" or other server systems (the "repository") to establish a "conversational session" with the client. The communication between the client and browser server is the "first communication link," and the link between the browser server and the presentation server is the "second communication link." Petitioner contended that the repository's local memory or an associated separate database fulfills the "database coupled to the repository" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: While presented as a single-reference ground, Petitioner argued that if the Board found Maes does not explicitly disclose storing applications in a separate database, it would have been obvious to do so. A POSITA would combine Maes's system with a conventional database for storing applications to gain well-known benefits such as centralized management, load balancing, and more efficient use of server resources.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as storing application data in databases was a common and routine practice in client-server architectures at the time.

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 argued that Bharedwaj discloses a base client-server system where a remote server executes applications for a "thin client" (e.g., a PDA) and establishes a "session with a remote client" in response to a request. However, Bharedwaj broadly teaches that the server downloads applications from the "Internet" or a "service provider," not a specific repository with a coupled database as claimed. Salomon was introduced to supply this missing element. Salomon explicitly teaches a "remote wireless application server" (analogous to Bharedwaj's server) that downloads applications from a "central site application server" (the "repository"), which in turn has access to applications maintained in coupled databases.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA reviewing Bharedwaj's system, which involves downloading applications from the internet, would be motivated to consult references like Salomon to implement a more robust, manageable, and efficient method for storing and distributing those applications. Salomon provides clear advantages over an amorphous "internet" source, including centralized updates, security control, and monitoring of application requests, all of which would improve Bharedwaj's system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both documents describe conventional client-server architectures for remotely executing applications on thin clients. Integrating Salomon's well-known repository-database backend for application storage into Bharedwaj's functionally similar frontend system was a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a predictable result.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted several other obviousness challenges, primarily building upon the core references. These included adding Bookman for its explicit teaching of a web server (repository) retrieving HTML files (applications) from a database; adding Hammond to teach a repository that includes a software development environment; and adding He to teach conventional server load balancing for distributing applications based on dynamic information like server load.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv based on co-pending district court litigation. The petition contended that the IPR and litigation are not co-extensive, as many of the challenged claims in the IPR were not asserted in court. Furthermore, Petitioner argued the litigation was in its early stages, with fact discovery stayed, and that the Board had already invested significant resources in evaluating the validity of the ’732 patent and related patents in other proceedings.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’732 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.