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
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 23313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’805 PATENT ARE
`PATENTABLE OVER THE PROPOSED COMBINATION ....................... 3
`A. Overview of the Board’s Decision ....................................................... 3
`B.
`The ’805 Patent .................................................................................... 3
`C.
`The CustomerSat Reference ................................................................. 7
`1.
`The Status and Scope of CustomerSat ....................................... 7
`2.
`The Disclosure of CustomerSat ................................................. 8
`a)
`CustomerSat’s “Feedback” Hyperlink Forces the
`User to a Separate Web Page to Provide Feedback ......... 9
`CustomerSat’s “Pop-Up” Type Random Survey
`Also Forces the User to a Separate Web Page ................ 9
`CustomerSat Contains No Disclosure of a
`Reporting Capability to Compare Feedback for
`Particular Web Pages ..................................................... 11
`The Medinets Reference ..................................................................... 12
`The HTML 4.0 Specification ............................................................. 14
`The Proposed Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest All of
`the Features Recited in the Challenged Claims.................................. 14
`1.
`Deficiency A – No “Page-Specific User Feedback” that
`has been “Provided by a User While the User Remained
`at the Particular Web Page” ..................................................... 15
`a)
`CustomerSat Fails to Address Deficiency A ................. 16
`i.
`The “Feedback Link” Fails to Show
`Deficiency A ........................................................ 17
`The Pop!Up Fails to Show Deficiency A ............ 17
`ii.
`iii. Conclusion ........................................................... 21
`b) Medinets and HTML 4.0 Specification Fail to
`Address Deficiency A .................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`c)
`
`2.
`
`Deficiency A Was a Distinguishing Feature During
`Prosecution of the ’805 Patent ....................................... 27
`Deficiency B – No Ability to “Identify … Particular Web
`Pages of the Website for Which the Page-Specific User
`Feedback Is Notable” Relative to Others ................................. 29
`a)
`CustomerSat Does Not Address Deficiency B .............. 30
`b) Medinets and HTML 4.0 Specification Do Not
`Address Deficiency B .................................................... 32
`There Would Have Been No Motivation to Combine These
`Cited References at the Time of the Invention................................... 34
`1.
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 34
`2.
`One of Ordinary Skill in the Art would Not Have Been
`Motivated to Combine These Cited References ...................... 36
`Petitioner’s Arguments Are Incorrect ...................................... 37
`The Findings in the Decision Should Be Reconsidered .......... 40
`HTML 4.0 Specification Does Not Provide The Missing
`Motivation ................................................................................ 42
`The Remaining Comments in the Chisholm Declaration
`Do Not Support a Finding of Motivation to Combine ............. 42
`Conclusion ............................................................................... 44
`7.
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................ 44
`1.
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 44
`2.
`Nexus........................................................................................ 46
`3.
`Commercial Success of the Covered OpinionLab Product ..... 51
`4.
`Industry Recognition of the Covered OpinionLab Product ..... 53
`5.
`Copying of the Claimed Invention ........................................... 54
`6.
`Conclusion ............................................................................... 56
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 56
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 34
`
`Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 ..................................................................................................... 45
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) .................................................... 35, 38
`
`In re Huai-Hung Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00023 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) .......................................................... 26
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 35
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 34, 35
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 45, 51
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00022 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013) .................................................... 21, 43
`
`Takeda Chem. Ind. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`417 F.Supp.2d 341 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) ................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Tasco, Inc. v. David Pagnani,
`IPR2013-00103 (P.T.A.B. May 23, 2013) ......................................................... 25
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 .................................................................................................................... 25
`§ 312(a)(3)(B) ..................................................................................................... 26
`§ 311(b) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.120(a) ............................................................................................................ 1
`§ 42.120(a) ............................................................................................................ 1
`§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper No. 11), Patent Owner OpinionLab, Inc. submits this
`
`Response to Petitioner Qualtrics, LLC’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,041,805 (Paper No. 1) and the Board’s Decision to Institute Inter
`
`Partes Review (Paper No. 10).
`
`The Board instituted review on only one ground of the three requested in the
`
`Petition—alleged obviousness by the three-reference combination of CustomerSat
`
`in view of Medinets in further view of HTML 4.0 Specification.1 OpinionLab
`
`respectfully submits that this sole instituted ground of review should not result in a
`
`finding that the challenged claims of the ’805 Patent are obvious, for at least four
`
`reasons.
`
`First, neither CustomerSat, Medinets, HTML 4.0, nor any combination of
`
`these references teaches or suggests allowing a user to provide feedback about a
`
`particular web page while the user remains at that particular web page. Instead,
`
`the systems disclosed in the cited references require the user to access an entirely
`
`separate web page to provide feedback (see Deficiency A, below).
`
`1 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a), the scope of this Response is limited to the
`
`sole instituted ground, and does not address the denied grounds nor the alleged
`
`evidence submitted in support of the denied grounds.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Second, these cited references fail to teach or suggest, in any combination,
`
`providing the ability for an interested party to identify a particular web page for
`
`which the page-specific feedback data is notable relative to other web pages (see
`
`Deficiency B, below).
`
`Third, beyond the proposed combination’s failure to teach or suggest at least
`
`these two claim features, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have been motivated to combine the references in the manner asserted in
`
`the Petition (see Section II.G, below).
`
`Fourth, even if the proposed combination did set forth a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness, there are strong secondary considerations present which demonstrate
`
`the non-obviousness of the claimed invention, including in particular commercial
`
`success, industry recognition, and copying by others. That evidence is more than
`
`sufficient to overcome any prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`For at least these reasons and other reasons clearly apparent, OpinionLab
`
`respectfully submits that the Petitioner has failed to meet its “burden of proving a
`
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(e). Thus, the Board should dismiss the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’805 PATENT ARE
`PATENTABLE OVER THE PROPOSED COMBINATION
`A. Overview of the Board’s Decision
`The Board issued its Decision on July 31, 2014, denying two of the three
`
`grounds in the Petition. See generally Decision. Particularly, the Board denied
`
`Ground 1 based on alleged anticipation by CustomerSat2 and Ground 2 based on
`
`alleged obviousness by CustomerSat in view of Medinets.3 The Board instituted
`
`review solely on Ground 3 based on alleged obviousness by CustomerSat in view
`
`of Medinets in further view of the HTML 4.0 Specification.
`
`The ’805 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’805 Patent broadly relates to tools for collecting and reporting on user
`
`reactions to particular web pages of a website. ’805 Patent, Ex. 1001, at 1:16-19.
`
`In its background section, the ’805 Patent identifies several significant deficiencies
`
`in the prior art, including that previous techniques: (i) collected user reactions to
`
`
`2 The Board found that CustomerSat “fails to mention that [its disclosed reporting
`
`functions] can be done on a ‘page-specific’ basis, as required by the claims.” See
`
`id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1003 at 25-26).
`
`3 The Board found that Petitioner and its declarant Mr. Chisholm only speculated
`
`that CustomerSat’s “Feedback” and “Pop!Up” icons “could be configured to
`
`remain stationary” during user scrolling. See id. at 6-7.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`transactions carried out using a website, but not subjective reactions to particular
`
`web pages of the website (id. at 1:35-43); (ii) were difficult to use, obtrusive, or
`
`unstandardized, deterring users from providing their reactions (id. at 1:47-51); and
`
`(iii) provided results that were often difficult to interpret or did not allow useful
`
`comparisons to be made between reactions to particular web pages (id. at 1:51-55).
`
`To address these significant deficiencies, the ’805 Patent provides example
`
`embodiments of a page-specific
`
`feedback collection and reporting
`
`mechanism. In one embodiment
`
`illustrated in Figures 2 and 3
`
`(reproduced here), it provides a
`
`user reaction measurement tool
`
`incorporated into each web page of a website. Id. at 11:59-66. The tool appears as
`
`a standardized, easily identifiable icon 50 viewable on each particular page 28. Id.
`
`at 11:66-12:2. Icon 50 remains in substantially the same location relative to the
`
`border 54 of the browser window 52 as the user scrolls. Id. at 12:23-39.
`
`The “user-selectable element” and “first element” recited in the challenged
`
`claims read on icon 50 on particular web page 28 of Figure 2.4
`
`4 OpinionLab provides these explanations of the claim language by way of
`
`example and solely to assist the Board in understanding the claim terminology. In
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`When a user interacts with the icon 50, a multi-level subjective rating scale
`
`60 becomes viewable, allowing users to provide subjective reactions to the
`
`particular web page 28. Id. at 12:40-46 (emphasis added). In one embodiment
`
`shown in Figure 6 (reproduced here), the
`
`user may be presented with a window 78
`
`containing one or more rating scales 72
`
`each associated with a specified aspect
`
`of the particular page 28 and a field 79
`
`to receive open-ended comments about
`
`the particular page 28. Id. at 15:51-59.
`
`Critically, in these embodiments, the process of collecting user feedback
`
`takes place while the user remains at the particular web page 28. Id. at 25:51-54.
`
`Unlike in the prior art, the user is not required to access a separate web page to
`
`Inter Partes Reviews, claims are given their “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). While Petitioner advanced
`
`proposed constructions in its Petition, the Board “determine[d] that no particular
`
`claim terms require an express construction.” Decision at 5. OpinionLab agrees.
`
`Because they do not appear to affect the “preponderance of the evidence” analysis,
`
`OpinionLab will utilize Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the relevant claim
`
`terms here, unless otherwise indicated. See Ex. 2002 (“Shamos Decl.”) ¶ 23.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`provide feedback concerning the particular page 28. This feature is reflected in
`
`challenged claims via the recitation “the page-specific user feedback concerning
`
`the particular webpages having been provided by a user while the user remained
`
`at the particular web page.” Id. at 25:50-54 (emphasis added).
`
`After the page-specific feedback is collected, it may be reported to an
`
`interested party, such as a website owner, in one or more of several possible
`
`formats. See generally id. at 16:65-25:30. In the example report shown in Figure
`
`8A (reproduced here), an
`
`interested party may review
`
`feedback via report 100, which
`
`allows one to identify particular
`
`web pages that have feedback
`
`notable relative to other pages.
`
`Specifically, lines 126 are provided for each particular web page 128, and the
`
`length of each line 126 represents the total number of ratings for the corresponding
`
`page 128 in each of the positive, neutral, and negative categories 138. This allows
`
`a website owner to, at a glance, identify particular pages 128 that are notable, for
`
`example, because they have high negative feedback.
`
` This page-specific reporting functionality is recited in the following portion
`
`of the challenged claims:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`… 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 ….
`
`Id. at 25:58-65.
`
`C. The CustomerSat Reference
`1.
`The Status and Scope of CustomerSat
`The first reference cited in the instituted ground is a collection of printouts
`
`of the CustomerSat website as they are alleged to have appeared on May 26, 1998
`
`(“CustomerSat”), obtained from the Internet Archive. See Petition at 18-19.5
`
`
`5 The Declaration of John Chisholm appended to the Petition purports to further
`
`explain CustomerSat, based on his alleged personal knowledge of information not
`
`reflected anywhere in the CustomerSat reference. See generally Ex. 1005. But
`
`Inter Partes Reviews can be requested “only on the basis of prior art consisting of
`
`patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Thus, only the content of
`
`CustomerSat is relevant – not the outside information relied upon in the Chisholm
`
`Declaration – and the declaration cannot be used to supply material missing from
`
`the CustomerSat reference itself.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`The Disclosure of CustomerSat
`CustomerSat discloses a data collection system for a website as a whole (i.e.,
`
`not a particular web page) using a separate data collection web page (i.e., the data
`
`collection is not performed while the user remains on the particular web page from
`
`which the survey is accessed).
`
`Specifically, CustomerSat discloses a data collection system providing for
`
`“customer satisfaction, market research, and employee surveying services using the
`
`Internet.” See Ex. 1003, at 3 (reproduced here).
`
`These over-arching goals relate to website-level
`
`issues, not web page-specific issues. See also
`
`id. at 12 (“High levels of satisfaction, loyalty,
`
`and referenceability result when experiences
`
`exceed expectations.”); see also Ex. 2004, at
`
`21:20-22:13.
`
`CustomerSat discloses two ways a user
`
`may provide feedback – a “feedback” hyperlink and a “pop-up” type random
`
`survey. Id. at 4 and 7. These two mechanisms are discussed below.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`a)
`
`CustomerSat’s “Feedback” Hyperlink Forces the
`User to a Separate Web Page to Provide Feedback
`
`The “Feedback” hyperlink is provided on the left side of the CustomerSat
`
`web pages. Clicking on it takes the user to the “CustomerSat.com Feedback and
`
`Membership” web page (reproduced here). See, e.g., id. at 4.
`
`As can be seen from a simple review of the web page printouts, the
`
`“Feedback and Membership” page is entirely separate from the web page
`
`containing the “Feedback” hyperlink. Compare
`
`id. at 3 (URL of web page with “Feedback”
`
`hyperlink) with id. at 4 (URL of “Feedback and
`
`Membership” web page).
`
`Moreover, the questions presented on this
`
`“CustomerSat.com Feedback and Membership”
`
`web page relate to website-level issues, not web
`
`page-specific issues (e.g., “how did you first learn
`
`about CustomerSat.com?”). Id. Indeed, not one question relates to a web page-
`
`specific issue.
`
`b) CustomerSat’s “Pop-Up” Type Random Survey Also
`Forces the User to a Separate Web Page
`
`CustomerSat also discloses that customer feedback can be obtained by
`
`inviting a user, via a “pop-up” invitation, to take a survey.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`More specifically, CustomerSat discloses that its “Pop!Up” technology
`
`intercepts every Nth visitor to a website “with
`
`an invitation to take a survey.” Id. at 7. It is
`
`important to understand that this disclosure is
`
`of an invitation only – there is no teaching or
`
`suggestion that this “pop-up” invitation
`
`contains the survey itself. Nor would there be
`
`any reason to expect that the survey would be
`
`provided in a “pop-up” window, as the CustomerSat surveys are related only to
`
`website-wide questions, not web page-specific questions (e.g., the “Web Site
`
`Satisfaction Gauge” page). Id. at 8-11. Thus, there would be no need to keep the
`
`user at any particular web page while providing feedback.
`
`Confirming this reading, CustomerSat then discloses that “[v]isitors who
`
`accept the invitation either get a survey button that they can click on at any time to
`
`go to the survey, or can be taken to the survey immediately.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added). Again, this makes clear that the survey is provided on an entirely separate
`
`web page, just like the other CustomerSat surveys. Should the user accept the
`
`invitation, similar to the “Feedback” hyperlink discussed above, the user is forced
`
`away from the invitation page to an entirely separate web page (i.e., the “Feedback
`
`and Membership” page) to take a website-wide survey. Id. at 4-6.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`This reading is further confirmed by the portion of CustomerSat that sets
`
`forth what Petitioner alleges is the source code related to the Pop!Up invitation.
`
`Id. at 67. This alleged source code explicitly references the “target” survey as
`
`“cssurvey.htm,” which is the “Feedback and Membership” page survey. Id.; see
`
`also id. at 4-6 (identifying the URL as http:/www.customersat.com/cssurvey.htm).
`
`This survey is clearly on an entirely separate web page from the one containing the
`
`Pop!Up invitation. See id. at 7.
`
`In sum, there is no teaching or suggestion in CustomerSat of providing a
`
`survey – as opposed to a mere invitation to take a survey – in a pop-up window.
`
`CustomerSat only discloses surveys located on a web page separate from the web
`
`page containing the “feedback” link or “pop-up” invitation, requiring a user to be
`
`forced away from that particular web page to provide any feedback.
`
`c)
`
`CustomerSat Contains No Disclosure of a Reporting
`Capability to Compare Feedback for Particular Web
`Pages
`
`CustomerSat first discloses that its survey results can be “analyzed” by such
`
`things as “frequency distribution of responses for each question, by respondent
`
`sub-group or segment; by cross-tabulation; [and] by difference between stated
`
`importance and rated performance (gap analysis).” Id. at 18. CustomerSat is silent
`
`as to any analysis based on feedback comparisons between particular web pages.
`
`Again, this is entirely expected because CustomerSat’s focus is solely on website-
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`wide feedback. Thus, there would be no need or ability to collect, analyze, and
`
`compare feedback for particular web pages.
`
`CustomerSat then discloses that survey results can be analyzed according to
`
`demographics, such as user information. Id. at 21-22. There is again no disclosure
`
`of any web page-to-web page comparison.
`
`Finally, CustomerSat discloses various reporting tools such as cross-tabs and
`
`regression analysis (id. at 25-26), and data collected through surveys being made
`
`available in formats such as charts and tables (id. at 36). These are simply a list of
`
`data analysis tools that provide analyses related to the website-level information
`
`discussed above. There is no disclosure in CustomerSat of any ability to access
`
`web page-specific feedback or to compare any such page-specific feedback across
`
`particular web pages.
`
`D. The Medinets Reference
`The second reference cited in the instituted ground is a PERL5 programming
`
`guide (PERL 5 by Example), by David Medinets (“Medinets”), with a very short
`
`“how to” section on website commenting. See Ex. 1004, at 060-64.
`
`Medinets discloses that “one of the hallmarks of a professional Web site” is
`
`“a way to provide feedback,” such as by placing “a little hypertext link that
`
`contains the Webmaster’s e-mail address.” Id. at 060. Medinets suggests an
`
`improvement where the identification of the web page from which the comments
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`are sent is automated by providing a “send a
`
`comment to the webmaster” button at the bottom
`
`of a web page (in this example,
`
`“http://localhost/”). See id. at 061-62 and Figure
`
`21.4, reproduced here.
`
`Pressing the “comment” button sends the user to an entirely different web
`
`page – a webmail form (“http://localhost/cgi-
`
`bin/mailform.pl”) – to enter textual feedback.
`
`See id. at 060 and Figure 21.3, reproduced here.
`
`When a user submits comments using the
`
`disclosed webmail form, they are sent via e-mail
`
`to the website’s webmaster. See id. at 064.
`
`Medinets also discloses setting up a script to store the textual feedback in a
`
`database, to make it easier to track comments and see which web pages “generate
`
`the most feedback.” Id. In other words, Medinets discloses a system where one
`
`can simply count how many textual feedback e-mails were received, but not one
`
`that allows an interested party to compare the substance of the feedback between
`
`particular web pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`The HTML 4.0 Specification
`
`E.
`Petitioner relies on the HTML 4.0 Specification in a very limited capacity,
`
`as discussed below where applicable. This reference describes a programming
`
`language or framework to be utilized on the Internet. See Ex. 1014, at 1 (“This
`
`specification defines the HyperText Markup Language (HTML), version 4.0, the
`
`publishing language of the World Wide Web.”). HTML 4.0 Specification does not
`
`provide any specific teaching or suggestion relating to survey systems or methods.
`
`See Ex. 2004 at 59:9-21.
`
`F.
`
`The Proposed Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest All of the
`Features Recited in the Challenged Claims
`Even if one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention6 would
`
`have been motivated to somehow combine CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML 4.0
`
`Specification in the manner asserted in the Petition (which they would not have),
`
`the combination would still be deficient for failing to disclose, teach, or suggest at
`
`least the following limitations.
`
`
`6 Petitioner and OpinionLab disagree as to the required qualifications of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Compare Petition at 14
`
`with Shamos Decl. ¶¶ 26-32. OpinionLab does not believe, however, that selecting
`
`one definition or the other should impact the non-obviousness determination here.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`Deficiency A – No “Page-Specific User Feedback” that has
`been “Provided by a User While the User Remained at the
`Particular Web Page”
`
`As discussed above, the ’805 Patent aimed to remedy deficiencies in prior
`
`art techniques that were difficult to use, obtrusive, or unstandardized, deterring
`
`users from providing their reactions. Ex. 1001, at 1:47-51; see also supra Section
`
`II.B. Among other things, prior art techniques deterred users from providing
`
`feedback because they forced a user to navigate away from the particular web page
`
`the user was on, to an entirely separate web page to provide feedback. See id. In
`
`contrast, allowing page-specific user feedback to be provided while the user
`
`remains at the particular web page, as claimed in the ’805 Patent, allows for an
`
`unobtrusive mechanism that more effectively solicits and receives feedback from
`
`the user.
`
`In this regard, independent Claims 1, 10, 18, and 26 each recites: (i) a “user-
`
`selectable” or “first” element viewable on each of a plurality of particular web
`
`pages of a website, and (ii) the received “page-specific user feedback concerning
`
`the particular webpages having been provided by a user while the user remained at
`
`the particular web page.”7
`
`
`7 Claims 10 and 26 also require the provision of a “second element . . . in response
`
`to user selection of the first element” that solicits the user feedback.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Thus, to meet the limitations of the independent claims, user feedback must
`
`be provided while the user remains at the particular web page that contains the
`
`“user-selectable” or “first” element. CustomerSat, Medinets, and the HTML 4.0
`
`Specification all fail to teach or suggest this claimed feature. Petitioner has failed
`
`to meet its burden to demonstrate obviousness for at least this reason.
`
`a)
`As discussed above, CustomerSat discloses only two ways that a user may
`
`CustomerSat Fails to Address Deficiency A
`
`access a survey: (i) a “Feedback” hyperlink; and (ii) a randomized “pop-up” survey
`
`invitation. Both mechanisms require the user to access an entirely separate web
`
`page to take the survey, thus teaching directly away from feedback “provided by a
`
`user while the user remained at the particular web page.”
`
`Petitioner seeks to obscure this significant difference. Petitioner compares
`
`the recited “user-selectable element viewable on each of a plurality of particular
`
`web pages of a website” to both the “Feedback” hyperlink and “pop-up” invitation
`
`of CustomerSat. Petition at 17-18. Petitioner then states that the user may provide
`
`feedback through a survey that is presented in response:
`
`First, the user clicks on a “Feedback” link or pop-up survey invitation,
`which then presents a survey to the user. (See, e.g., CustomerSat at 3
`(“Feedback” link); id. at 47, line 340 (source code for HTML link); id.
`at 4-6 (user satisfaction survey at destination of link); id. at 7
`(“Visitors who accept the invitation . . . can be taken to the survey
`immediately.”); id. at 61, lines 4-15 & 67, lines 234-67 (software
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`associated with Pop!Up).) The survey then receives feedback entered
`by the user . . . .
`
`Petition at 21 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s own description proves the point—
`
`nowhere in Petitioner’s argument is a showing that feedback is provided while the
`
`user has remained “at the particular web page” that contains the “user-selectable”
`
`or “first” element. CustomerSat simply does not work that way.
`
`i.
`
`The “Feedback Link” Fails to Show Deficiency A
`
`Regarding the “Feedback” hyperlink mechanism, Petitioner’s argument
`
`concedes that clicking on the link activates HTML code to take the user to the
`
`survey at the URL that is the “destination of [the] link.” See id. In other words, as
`
`discussed above, clicking on the “Feedback” link forces the user away from the
`
`“particular web page” (using the terminology of the claims), to the CustomerSat
`
`“Feedback and Membership” survey, which is explicitly disclosed as being on a
`
`different web page than the “particular web page” containing the “Feedback” link.
`
`See Ex. 1003, at 3-4; see also Shamos Decl. ¶ 39. Thus, the “feedback” link and
`
`resulting survey mechanism of CustomerSat does not disclose, teach, or suggest
`
`the user feedback “having been provided by a user while the user remained at the
`
`particular web page” containing the “user-selectable” or “first” element.
`
`ii.
`
`The Pop!Up Fails to Show Deficiency A
`
`Turning to CustomerSat’s “pop-up” mechanism, Petitioner’s again concedes
`
`that the user is “taken to the survey immediately.” Indeed, the express teachings of
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`CustomerSat discussed above make clear that the survey is on an entirely different
`
`web page. Petitioner’s arguments and the Board’s Decision erroneously assume
`
`that because CustomerSat discloses a “pop-up window” on the particular web page
`
`that presents an invitation to take a survey, the resulting survey is also presented
`
`via a “pop-up window” on the particular web page. See Petition at 22-23; Decision
`
`at 7-8. That assumption directly contradicts the teachings of CustomerSat.
`
`As an initial matter, neither the Petition nor the Decision cites any disclosure
`
`within the reference itself that (i) depicts or describes the survey being within a
`
`pop-up window on the particular web page or (ii) demonstrates the survey’s
`
`orientation in relation to the particular web page. See Ex. 2004, at 24:14-25:2;
`
`101:18-20 (conceding that there is no graphical depiction of the “Pop!Up”).
`
`CustomerSat contains no such disclosure.
`
`Rather, CustomerSat discloses that its “Pop!Up” technology intercepts every
`
`Nth visitor to a website “with an invitation to take a survey.” Ex. 1003 at 7. But
`
`this is only an invitation – there is no teaching or suggestion that this “pop-up”
`
`invitation contains the survey itself. See