Paper 45
`Entered: July 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`____________
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M. PLENZLER,
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and CARL M. DEFRANCO,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`Entered: July 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`____________
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M. PLENZLER,
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and CARL M. DEFRANCO,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Qualtrics, LLC, filed a Petition (“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 30, and 33 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,041,805 B2 (“the ’805 patent”). After considering the Petition, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged claims on the ground
`
`of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. After institution, OpinionLab,
`
`Inc., the owner of the ’805 patent, filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO
`
`Resp.”), to which Qualtrics filed a Reply (“Reply”). We entertained oral
`
`argument from both parties.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c).
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Qualtrics has not proven, by
`
`preponderant evidence, that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’805 Patent2
`
`
`
`The ’805 patent is directed to a system and method for soliciting and
`
`reporting feedback from a user of a commercial website. Ex. 1001, 1:15–19.
`
`Typical websites measure a user’s reaction to the website as a whole. Id. at
`
`1:35–56. In contrast, the system of the ’805 patent solicits and reports user
`
`feedback on a page-specific basis by incorporating a “user reaction
`
`measurement tool” into each web page of the website. Id. at 5:25–36,
`
`11:59–66. The tool appears as a “viewable icon” on each web page and
`
`solicits the user’s subjective reaction to the particular web page being
`
`displayed. Id. at 5:37–50, 11:66–12:6, Fig. 2. When the user clicks on the
`
`icon, a rating scale and/or a comment box appears within the user’s browser
`
`1 A transcript (“Tr.”) has been entered into the record. Paper 44.
`2 The ’805 patent is the subject of concurrent district court actions,
`OpinionLab, Inc. v. Qualtrics Labs, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01574 (N.D. Ill.), and
`OpinionLab, Inc. v. iPerceptions Inc., No. 1:12-cv-05662 (N.D. Ill.). Pet. 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`window. Id. at 5:65–6:21, 12:40–14:10, Figs. 3–6. The rating scale and
`
`comment box allow the user to provide subjective reactions to various
`
`aspects of the particular web page while remaining at the web page itself.
`
`Id. at 14:11–18; compare Fig. 2 with Figs. 3, 5 (depicting icon 50 on web
`
`page 28 as being replaced by rating scales 60, 70).
`
`
`
`Software associated with the icon operates to collect and store the
`
`user’s reaction in a database for subsequent reporting to a website owner.
`
`Id. at 2:6–18. The website owner can generate a report for analyzing and
`
`identifying user reactions and feedback related to particular web pages. Id.
`
`at 15:27–21:54, Figs. 8A, 8B, 9. The report allows the website owner to
`
`assess the success of each web page in the eyes of the user community. Id.
`
`at 13:49–52.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 10, 18, and 26 are independent.
`
`Claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`One or more computer-readable non-transitory
`1.
`
`storage media embodying software operable when executed to:
`
`provide a user-selectable element viewable on each of a
`plurality of particular web pages of a website upon initial
`display of a particular web page and soliciting page-specific
`user feedback concerning the particular web page upon initial
`display of the particular web page, the user-selectable element
`appearing identically and behaving consistently on each of the
`plurality of particular web pages; and
`
`receive the page-specific user feedback concerning the
`particular web page for reporting to an interested party, the
`page-specific user feedback concerning the particular
`webpages having been provided by a user while the user
`remained at the particular web page, and the page-specific
`user feedback comprising one or more page-specific subjective
`ratings of the particular web page and one or more associated
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`
`page-specific open-ended comments concerning the particular
`web page,
`
`the page specific user feedback allowing the interested
`party to access page-specific subjective ratings and associated
`page-specific open-ended comments across the plurality of
`particular web pages to identify one or more particular web
`pages for which the page-specific user feedback is notable
`relative to page-specific user feedback for other particular web
`pages;
`
`wherein the user-selectable element is viewable within a
`browser window upon initial display of the particular web page
`and remains viewable within the browser window, at least prior
`to the user selection, regardless of user scrolling.
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:40–26:3 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`In the Preliminary Proceeding,3 we instituted trial on only one of the
`
`three grounds proposed by Qualtrics, in particular, determining Qualtrics had
`
`a “reasonable likelihood” of proving the challenged claims unpatentable as
`
`obvious over the combined teachings of CustomerSat,4 Medinets,5 and
`
`HTML Spec.6 Dec. to Inst. 12. Having instituted trial under the “reasonable
`
`likelihood” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we decide now whether
`
`
`3 A “Preliminary Proceeding,” as defined by our rules, “begins with the
`filing of a petition for instituting a trial and ends with a written decision as to
`whether a trial will be instituted.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`4 Customer Satisfaction Measurement, Surveys and Market Research by
`CustomerSat.com, The Internet Survey Experts, https://web.archive.org/web/
`19980526190826/http:/www. Customersat.com/ (retrieved Nov. 21, 2013
`from Internet Archive, Wayback Machine), 1–76 (May 26, 1998) (Ex.
`1003).
`5 DAVID MEDINETS, PERL5 BY EXAMPLE: THE EASIEST WAY TO LEARN HOW
`TO PROGRAM, Que Corp., 1–66 (1996) (Ex. 1004).
`6 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), HTML 4.0 Specification, Dave
`Raggett et al. (eds.), 1–366 (Apr. 24, 1998) (Ex. 1014).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`Qualtrics has proven unpatentability of the challenged claims by a
`
`“preponderance of the evidence,” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard,
`
`claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the patent’s
`
`entire written disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary
`
`meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
`
`definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or
`
`prosecution history.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, although Qualtrics advances a construction of
`
`several claim terms of the ’805 patent (Pet. 6–14), OpinionLab does not
`
`believe that any specific definition is necessary (PO Resp. 4–5 n. 4). We
`
`conclude that the claim terms do not require an express construction in order
`
`to analyze the challenged claims relative to the asserted prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Ground of Obviousness
`
`Our analysis centers on a single limitation of independent claims 1,
`
`10, 18 and 26, one that is common to all of the claims, namely, “page-
`
`specific user feedback . . . having been provided by a user while the user
`
`remained at the particular web page.” Qualtrics relies primarily on
`
`CustomerSat’s disclosure of “Pop!Up questionnaires” for teaching this
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`limitation.7 Pet. 22–23; Reply 1–3. According to Qualtrics, the pop-up
`
`questionnaire, or survey, can be displayed “immediately” upon the user
`
`clicking on a survey button, and can be viewed “on the particular web page
`
`from which it was launched, without requiring the user to navigate to a
`
`different page.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 7); see also Reply 1–3 (arguing
`
`that CustomerSat “says that a user can be taken . . . to the ‘Pop!Up’
`
`questionnaire immediately”).
`
`
`
`In response, OpinionLab counters that, although CustomerSat’s pop-
`
`up questionnaire, or survey, may be displayed immediately after the user
`
`clicks on the survey button, it nevertheless “is provided on an entirely
`
`separate web page.” PO Resp. 19. That CustomerSat discloses the survey
`
`button and resulting survey as pop-ups, OpinionLab argues, does not mean
`
`that they both pop-up on the same web page. Id. at 18. In other words,
`
`according to OpinionLab, CustomerSat’s survey button “is only an invitation
`
`—there is no teaching or suggestion that this ‘pop-up’ invitation contains the
`
`survey itself.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 41–49).
`
`
`
`At the outset, we note that nowhere does CustomerSat describe or
`
`depict a pop-up questionnaire on the same web page as the pop-up survey
`
`invitation. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 4, 7, 23. According to CustomerSat, if a user
`
`wishes to provide feedback, the user can click on a survey button “at any
`
`time to go to the survey, or can be taken to the survey immediately.” Id. at 7
`
`(emphases added). That description suggests that the survey itself is in a
`
`
`7 In the Petition, Qualtrics also references CustomerSat’s disclosure of a
`“Feedback” icon as satisfying certain claim limitations. Pet. 16–22. At oral
`argument, Qualtrics clarified that the “Feedback” icon is “just a link to
`another page” or “a link to a separate page . . . [t]hat is not the Pop!Up
`questionnaire.” Tr. 9–10.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`location different from the survey button. Indeed, the “Feedback and
`
`Membership” form depicted in CustomerSat stands alone, by itself, without
`
`any display of the web page from which the feedback form was launched,
`
`i.e., when the user clicked on the survey button so as to provide feedback.
`
`See, e.g, Ex. 1003, 4 (depicting the “Feedback and Membership” form).
`
`Thus, we are not persuaded that CustomerSat’s simple disclosure of the
`
`questionnaire as a “Pop!Up” amounts to sufficient evidence that it is
`
`provided on the same web page as the survey button.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the testimony of the parties’ declarants buttresses a finding
`
`that the user, in CustomerSat, provides feedback after being directed to a
`
`different web page, rather than while remaining on the same web page. For
`
`instance, we credit the testimony of OpinionLab’s declarant, Dr. Michael
`
`Shamos, that the underlying source code for CustomerSat’s feedback form
`
`refers to a web page located at “www.customersat.com/cssurvey.htm,” while
`
`the source code for the survey button, or invitation, indicates a web page
`
`located at “www.customersat.com/cgi-bin/popupadmin.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 47
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 67). Qualtrics’s declarant, Mr. John Chisholm, likewise
`
`only describes the “popupadmin” code as controlling the survey button,
`
`without ever ascribing that code to the survey itself. Ex. 2004, 105:10–
`
`107:19. Thus, although CustomerSat’s feedback questionnaire may be the
`
`target of the survey button, or invitation, it nonetheless “appears on a
`
`completely separate webpage from the web page [] which contains [the]
`
`pop-up invitation.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 47 (declaration of Dr. Shamos).8
`
`
`8 As further support, Qualtrics points to a depiction of a feedback form
`appearing within the same screen, and overlying, a particular web page. Pet.
`23. As depicted, however, the feedback form is on a different web page than
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`
`
`Qualtrics faults OpinionLab for reading too much into CustomerSat’s
`
`disclosure, arguing that “the cited disclosure says nothing about how the
`
`resulting survey is displayed.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1003, 7, and Ex. 1027
`
`¶¶ 14–17). Qualtrics misses the mark, however, because the very crux of the
`
`claimed invention is directed at how the user feedback is provided, i.e.,
`
`while the user remains at the particular web page. As such, Qualtrics’s
`
`admission that CustomerSat does not teach how the survey is displayed—
`
`i.e., whether it is on the same page or a different page—hurts, rather than
`
`helps, their case.
`
`
`
`Qualtrics also argues that “the unrefuted testimony of Mr.
`
`Chisholm is that Pop!Up questionnaires could be—and, in fact, were—
`
`displayed in a pop-up window.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 18–22). We
`
`disagree. OpinionLab’s declarant, Dr. Shamos, refutes expressly, and
`
`credibly, the testimony of Mr. Chisholm, explaining multiple times that,
`
`although the survey questionnaire “could be” displayed in a pop-up window,
`
`“there’s no suggestion [in CustomerSat] that the questionnaire is showing up
`
`in this—popup window.” Ex. 1028, 160:24–161:20; see also id. at 162:9–11
`
`(“there’s no hint . . .”). And, more succinctly, in response to questions about
`
`whether clicking on CustomerSat’s survey button would turn “the survey
`
`invitation into a survey question,” and “could it work that way?,” Dr.
`
`Shamos responded: “You mean is it physically possible that you could
`
`mangle the website in that manner? Yes, you certainly could, if you wanted
`
`to. There’s no—certainly no hint or suggestion here that it’s done that
`
`
`the underlying web page, as evidenced by the different URLs associated
`with each. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 183.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`way.” Id. at 164:23–165:20 (emphasis added). That testimony persuades us
`
`that CustomerSat neither teaches providing the survey questionnaire, i.e.,
`
`feedback form, on the same web page as the survey button, nor would it
`
`have suggested as much to a skilled artisan.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Qualtrics relies on Medinets as teaching a “user
`
`feedback form” (Ex. 1004, Fig. 21.3) that can be filled out while the user
`
`remains at the particular web page from which a “submit button” (id., Fig.
`
`21.4) was clicked to summon the feedback form. Pet. 38–39. According to
`
`Qualtrics, Medinets teaches that the submit button and feedback form “are
`
`both generated using HTML forms,” and, from that simple teaching,
`
`surmises that they “could be on the same particular web page.” Id. at 38. In
`
`support, Qualtrics proffers the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Chisholm, who
`
`likewise speculates that Medinets’s submit button and feedback form “could
`
`be” on the same particular web page, or the button “could be” set to open the
`
`feedback form in a new browser window that would allow the user to remain
`
`at the web page. Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 184–187).
`
`
`
`That the feedback form of Medinets “could be” modified to remain on
`
`the same web page as the submit button does not mean that a skilled artisan
`
`would have understood Medinets as, in fact, teaching or suggesting such a
`
`capability. In fact, when Medinets speaks of the “user feedback form” and
`
`the “submit button,” we do not discern any teaching or suggestion of them
`
`appearing on the same page. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 60, 62. Indeed, Medinets
`
`seems to indicate the opposite, stating that “a user feedback form appears
`
`that automatically knows which page the user was on when the button was
`
`pressed.” Id. at 60 (emphasis added). That the feedback form stores the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`location of the page on which the button was pressed suggests that users are
`
`taken to a different page, not that they remain on the same page.
`
`
`
`Moreover, Qualtrics’s own declarant conceded that the “HTTP
`
`addresses,” or “URLs,” for Medinets’s feedback form (Ex. 1004, Fig. 21.3)
`
`and submit button (id., Fig. 21.4) “are different,” and “I don’t think there’s
`
`anything that discloses the two pages are the same.” Ex. 2004, 41:17–43:23.
`
`As such, we are not persuaded that Medinets’s feedback form is a pop-up
`
`that appears on the same page as the submit button, but rather is a different
`
`web page. OpinionLab’s declarant, Dr. Shamos, likewise corroborates that
`
`Medinets’s feedback form is a “separate email form which replaces the web
`
`page” having the submit button. Ex. 2002 ¶ 68. Thus, the record reflects
`
`that both parties’ declarants agree that Medinets fails to teach or suggest a
`
`feedback form that appears on the same web page as the submit button that
`
`launches the feedback form.
`
`
`
`Turning now to the third reference of the combination on which we
`
`instituted trial, the HTML Spec, Qualtrics argues that it teaches the use of
`
`“HTML frames,” which purportedly allow a user to provide feedback while
`
`remaining at the particular web page. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1014, 193–205).
`
`In making this argument, however, Qualtrics does not rely solely on the
`
`HTML Spec, but points back to the feedback form in Medinets as being
`
`“predicated on the use of HTML.” Id. at 44–45. As discussed above, we are
`
`not persuaded by Qualtrics’s argument with respect to Medinets, nor are we
`
`persuaded that the HTML Spec itself suffices to cure the deficiencies with
`
`Medinets. Although the HTML Spec may describe, generally, the
`
`advantages of “HTML frames,” nowhere does that description, as relied
`
`upon by Qualtrics, teach the use of HTML frames for creating a feedback
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`form for a website. See Ex. 1014, 193–205. Even Qualtrics’s own declarant
`
`conceded that it does not mention using HTML frames “to create a survey to
`
`get feedback about a website.” See Ex. 2004, 59:9–21. As such, Qualtrics’s
`
`argument with respect to the HTML Spec is no better, more likely less
`
`availing, than its arguments with respect to CustomerSat and Medinets.
`
`
`
`And, to the extent that Qualtrics may rely on the knowledge of a
`
`skilled artisan to fill in the gaps found to exist in the teaching of the HTML
`
`Spec, we are not persuaded. See Pet. 44–45; Reply 4. In particular,
`
`Qualtrics points to the testimony of OpinionLab’s declarant, Dr. Shamos,
`
`that, “If your question is could one have implemented the invention of the
`
`OpinionLab patent using HTML 4, the answer is yes.” Reply 4 (citing Ex.
`
`1028, 434:20–22) (emphasis added). But that response speaks to the use of
`
`HTML, in general, as a possible tool for implementing the claimed
`
`invention; it was not about a skilled artisan’s understanding of the HTML
`
`Spec itself. As shown by testimony that followed immediately from that
`
`statement, Dr. Shamos explained, quite aptly, that, “If your question is
`
`would one be motivated by reading the HTML 4 manuals to make the
`
`inventions of the OpinionLab patents, no.” Id. at 434:22–24 (emphasis
`
`added). And, in reasoning that a skilled artisan would not have looked to the
`
`HTML Spec for purposes of placing the feedback form in a popup window,
`
`he stated, “there’s nothing whatsoever to do with collecting feedback or
`
`survey information here.” Id. at 435:1–25. Qualtrics does not offer any
`
`rebuttal to that testimony, nor could it, because its own declarant testified
`
`similarly, as discussed above. See Ex. 2004, 59:9–21.
`
`
`
`Thus, after considering the totality of the evidence presented by
`
`Qualtrics and OpinionLab, we determine that the preponderance weighs in
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`favor of showing that neither CustomerSat, Medinets, nor HTML Spec,
`
`individually or collectively, would have taught or suggested to a skilled
`
`artisan the capability of providing feedback while the user remained at the
`
`particular web page from which the feedback was solicited, as required by
`
`each of the independent claims. The remaining claims challenged in the
`
`Petition, claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 30, and 33, depend,
`
`directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 10, 18, and 26, and thus, include the
`
`limitation that we determined was lacking from CustomerSat, Medinets, and
`
`HTML Spec, as discussed above. Accordingly, we determine that Qualtrics
`
`has not demonstrated by preponderant evidence that dependent claims 2, 5,
`
`8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over the
`
`combination of CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML Spec.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Qualtrics’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Qualtrics moves to exclude the opinions of OpinionLab’s declarant,
`
`Dr. Shamos, for two reasons. Mot. 1 (Paper 36). First, Qualtrics seeks to
`
`exclude Dr. Shamos’s opinions because he “applied the wrong legal standard
`
`in determining the level of ordinary skill.” Id. at 2. According to Qualtrics,
`
`Dr. Shamos “considered only the ’805 Patent and failed to assess the prior
`
`art in the field” in opining on non-obviousness. Id. But the only support
`
`offered by Qualtrics is its mischaracterization of Dr. Shamos’s deposition
`
`testimony that he “deemed the prior art ‘irrelevant.’” Id. at 3. We are not
`
`persuaded.
`
`
`
`Our review of Dr. Shamos’s testimony reveals that he considered the
`
`patent specification of the ’805 patent in terms of the “field of the
`
`invention,” the “level of education and background [] needed to understand
`
`the specification,” and “what one would need to know” in order to
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`understand not only the claimed invention but also “the prior art that was
`
`referenced in the petitions.” Ex. 1028, 70:1–19. That he reviewed more
`
`than simply the ’805 patent, in opining on the level of skill in the art, is
`
`likewise confirmed by his declaration, which attests that he “considered the
`
`three references” relied on in the Petition, “along with all of its Exhibits”
`
`and the “prosecution histories” of patents related to the ’805 patent. Ex.
`
`2002 ¶¶ 18, 20.
`
`
`
`Moreover, as he further attests, Dr. Shamos opined on the level of
`
`skill in the art based on his “education, experience, and training in academia
`
`and industry.” Id. ¶ 31. Because, as a matter of necessity, the knowledge
`
`that Dr. Shamos gained in the course of his career, which includes
`
`significant experience in the field of “eCommerce” and “public opinion
`
`polling” (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 4–11, 13), would have weighed in his assessment of
`
`the level of skill in the art, we are not persuaded by Qualtrics’s contention
`
`that his opinion was based solely on the ’805 patent. As such, we deny
`
`Qualtrics’s motion to exclude the declaration and deposition testimony of
`
`Dr. Shamos with respect to his opinions regarding non-obviousness of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`
`
`Qualtrics also seeks to exclude Dr. Shamos’s opinions on secondary
`
`considerations because they “go beyond his qualifications” and “fail to show
`
`the required nexus.” Mot. 1. As there was no need for us to reach evidence
`
`of secondary considerations, Qualtrics’ motion to exclude on that issue is
`
`denied as moot.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Qualtrics has not proven by preponderant evidence that claims 1, 2, 5,
`
`8, 10, 11, 14, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 30, and 33 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`§ 103 as obvious over CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML Spec. This is a
`
`Final Written Decision of the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 30,
`
`
`
`
`
`and 33 of the ’805 patent have not been proven to be unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Qualtrics’s Motion to Exclude is denied;
`
`and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any party seeking judicial review of this
`
`Final Written Decision must comply with the notice and service
`
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805 B2
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Robert Steinberg
`Neil A. Rubin
`Jonathan M. Jackson
`Philip Wang
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`neil.rubin@lw.com
`jonathan.jackson@lw.com
`philip.wang@lw.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`Timothy P. Cremen
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
