`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: June 22,2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT SOCIAL MEDIA, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`
`Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Facebook, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 4, 17, 18, 20, and 26 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,415,316 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’316 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Rembrandt Social Media, L.P. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On July 7, 2014, we instituted an
`inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’316 patent on the alleged
`grounds of unpatentability. Paper 9 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 17, “PO Resp.”) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20,
`“Reply”). Patent Owner filed its Observations on the testimony of
`Petitioner’s Expert, Mr. Ed Tittel (Paper 25) to which Petitioner responded
`(Paper 28). Patent Owner also filed a Statement Concerning Petitioner’s
`New Argument (Paper 29) to which Petitioner responded (Paper 30).
`Oral hearing was held on April 6, 2015.1
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any
`challenged claim of the ’316 patent is unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’316 patent is involved
`in one co-pending district court case: Rembrandt Social Media, L.P. v.
`
`Facebook, Inc., Case No. 13‐CV‐00158 TSE (E.D. Va.), filed February 4,
`
`
`1 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 32
`(“Tr.”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`2013, and served on February 6, 2013. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2. The case is
`currently stayed pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
`
`B. The ’316 Patent
`The ’316 patent relates generally to computer networks and,
`specifically, to a method and apparatus for implementing a diary of web
`pages on a computer network. Ex. 1001, 1:19–22. According to the ’316
`patent, there was a need for a way for users to keep track of locations that
`they have visited in a more visual and memorable way. Id. at 1:65–67.
`To address this need, the ’316 patent discloses a method and apparatus
`for implementing a web page diary. Id. at Title. The diary allows a diary
`owner to organize information, including links to websites and other content,
`like a book. Id. at 4:62–64. A diary has a book design that determines the
`graphics and layout of content within pages of a diary. Id. at 5:9–10. The
`book design includes page designs. Id. at 5:11. Page designs define the
`visual and audible appearance of the page, provides slots for content entries
`or objects, and determines the size and location of such slots within the page.
`Id. at 5:14–17. Diary owners can insert content objects into pages. Id. at
`5:18. When a content object is inserted into a page, it is displayed in one of
`the slots provided by the page design of the page. Id. at 5:19–20. A content
`object can be any type of object, including text, bookmarks, images,
`programs, movies, etc. Id. at 5:20–22. The book design and book content
`are independent. Id. at 5:26–27. Diary software dynamically combines the
`diary’s book design and book content to present a cohesive view of the
`“book.” Id. at 5:32–34. The diary may enforce privacy rules on any part or
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`level of the book—i.e., book, section, page, or individual content object. Id.
`at 5:55–57.
`Figure 1(b) is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1(b) is a block diagram of a computer network in accordance with an
`embodiment of the invention of the ’316 patent that illustrates how a diary is
`viewed or edited. Ex. 1001, 6:30–32. The system comprises user system
`102, diary server 104, and one or more content providers 106. Id. at 6:32–
`34. User system 102 can be the system of the owner of the diary or of a
`person who wishes to view the diary. Id. at 6:34–36. User system 102
`includes browser 110, which is shown executing diary applet 112
`downloaded from diary server 104, and diary information 114, which
`contains information about the diary of this diary owner. Id. at 6:36–40.
`Diary applet 112 generates HTML 111 for the web pages of the user’s diary,
`which are preferably displayed by browser 110. Id. at 6:40–43.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`Diary server 104 includes diary information 122 (including diary
`information for a plurality of users’ diaries), diary software 124, an original
`copy of diary applet 112, and the HTML needed to display an initial web
`page. Ex. 1001, 6:44–48.
`A user begins viewing or editing a diary by viewing web page 113
`available from diary server 104. Id. at 6:56–59. Web page 113 allows the
`user to indicate that he wishes to view or edit a specified diary. Id. at 6:59–
`60. This indication begins execution of diary applet 112, which sends a
`request 116 to diary server 104 for the contents of the specified diary. Id. at
`6:60–62. When diary software 124 receives request 116 from browser 110,
`it sends information 118, including diary information, appropriate for the
`specified diary to the user system. Id. at 6:63–67. Diary applet 112 reads
`diary information 114 received from diary server 104 and generates HTML
`111 for one or more diary pages in accordance with diary information 114.
`Id. at 7:1–3. Diary applet 112 instructs browser 110 to display the diary
`page(s) in the browser window. Id. at 7:3–5.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is
`reproduced below:
`1.
`A method of organizing
`comprising:
`sending from a diary server to a user system, a diary
`program capable of being executed by a browser in the user
`system;
`sending diary information from the diary server to the
`user system, the information comprising content data including
`an associated time, a page design to specify the presentation of
`the content data, and configuration information for controlling
`
`information for display,
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`the configuration
`behavior of a cohesive diary page,
`information including privacy level information;
`assembling the cohesive diary page by dynamically
`combining the content data and the page design in accordance
`with the configuration information for the cohesive diary page
`to be displayed by the diary program running in the browser;
`receiving by the diary server at least one request for at
`least one change concerning the diary information, from the
`diary program in the user system; and
`sending, by the diary server to the user system, new diary
`information for changing the cohesive diary page.
`Ex. 1001, 23:44–65.
`
`D. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`US 6,233,600 B1 May 15, 2001
`(filed July 15, 1997)
`ED TITTEL & STEPHEN N. JAMES, MORE HTML FOR DUMMIES,
`
`Salas
`
`xv‐xxv, 57–84, 153–180, 341–364 (2d ed. 1997)
`
`(“Tittel (1997)”)
`Parker
`Angles
`
`
`US 5,729,734
`US 5,933,811
`
`
`Mar. 17, 1998
`Aug. 3, 1999
`
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
`References
`Basis Claims Challenged
`Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker
`§ 103
`1, 4, 17, 18, and 26
`Salas, Tittel (1997), Parker, and Angles § 103
`20
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–82 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`In the Decision to Institute, we interpreted various claim terms of the
`’316 patent as follows:
`Claim Term (Claims)
`“cohesive diary page”
`(1 and 17)
`“configuration information”
`(1 and 17)
`
`Interpretation
`a page in which the content data and the
`page design are fully integrated for display
`information that determines what
`information will be displayed to a user who
`is viewing a cohesive diary page
`See Dec. to Inst. 8–9. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their
`Patent Owner Response and Reply. We adopt the above claim constructions
`based on our previous analysis, and, based on the complete record now
`before us, see no reason to deviate from those constructions for purposes of
`this decision.
`In our Decision to Institute, we also construed “privacy level
`information” to mean “configuration information that describes or specifies
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`at least one user or category of users permitted to view particular content on
`a cohesive diary page.” Dec. to Inst. 9–10.
`Patent Owner argues that our construction “is too broad because it
`covers information that merely specifies whether a particular individual user
`has access to certain content, and does not specify a level of access—the
`universe of users that have access to certain content.” PO Resp. 50.
`According to Patent Owner, “privacy level information” should be construed
`to mean “configuration information that describes or specifies the universe
`of one or more users or categories of users permitted to view particular
`content on a cohesive diary page.” Id. at 49 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner counters that (1) the Specification does not use the word
`“universe;” (2) the claims themselves are written from the perspective of a
`single “user” system; (3) Figure 4(d) describes an unclaimed feature that
`should not be read into the claims; and (4) the claims use “level” in singular
`form and, therefore, information about only one user falls squarely within
`the broadest reasonable construction of privacy level information. Pet.
`Reply 1–4.
`Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are
`persuaded that our initial construction of “privacy level information” is
`incorrect. We are not persuaded, however, that a “privacy level” describes
`or specifies a “universe” or “category” of users permitted to view particular
`content. Specifically, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the
`examples of privacy levels disclosed in the ’316 patent reflect a universe, or
`level, of permitted users (PO Resp. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4d, 10:36–
`41 (“world, friend, close friend, best friend, and owner”), 18:8–29 (“various
`classes of persons”))). Patent Owner’s construction requires that a “privacy
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`level”—e.g., “owner”—specify a universe or category of users—e.g., user1.
`The ’316 patent, however, describes a “privacy level” as a characteristic of
`the diary page, not as a group of users/viewers of the diary page. Ex. 1001,
`10:37–39 (“Window 450 allows a user of the diary to set a privacy level at
`which the diary is operating.”) (emphasis added). As described in the ’316
`patent, the “privacy level” at which the diary page is operating does not
`depend upon the identity of the user/viewer of the diary page. For example,
`the ’316 patent discloses:
`Button 438 allows any user to change the privacy level on
`which the diary is operating, provided that the user is able to
`authenticate himself at the desired level. Authentication is
`preferably performed by requiring the user to enter a password
`required to change the privacy level to a certain level.
`Ex. 1001, 10:29–33 (emphasis added). The ’316 patent further discloses that
`“[a]ny user can change the privacy level, provided that he is able to
`authenticate himself, e.g., via a password supplied in area 456.” Id. at
`10:41–43 (emphasis added). In both passages, the user is required to enter
`only a password, not a username. The ’316 patent also describes the
`following example: “If the user selects the owner privacy level (button 455)
`and can supply a correct password in area 45[6], after clicking OK button
`45[7], buttons 440, 442, 444, and 446 of FIG. 4(a) become available to the
`owner.” Id. at 10:45–48. Thus, any user that can provide the “correct
`password” can view the diary at the “owner” privacy level. This is
`consistent with the disclosure that the password required to access a given
`privacy level does not depend upon the identity of the viewer/user of the
`diary page:
`Button 473 [of Fig. 4(f)] allows the owner to change passwords
`for the five privacy levels that are shown in FIG. 4(d). All users
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`must enter an appropriate password before diary applet 112 will
`generate HTML (for content objects) or otherwise reveal the
`existence of objects having those privacy levels (e.g., for named
`sections in the named section list 404).
`Ex. 1001, 11:24–29 (emphases added); see also id. at 17:22–23 (“the
`passwords required for users to access the different privacy levels”
`(emphasis added)), 18:25–27 (“The diary applet of the described
`embodiment asks for a password to determine a privacy level of a person.”
`(emphasis added)).
`Under our initial construction of Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction, a particular “privacy level” would be available only to a
`particular user, or users, within the “universe” or “category” of users
`specified for that privacy level. That is inconsistent, though, with the ’316
`patent’s teaching that a diary page can be set to a privacy level by any user
`that enters the correct password for that privacy level. Accordingly, neither
`our construction nor Patent Owner’s construction can be correct.
`The ’316 patent uses the term “privacy level” in two contexts: it
`describes a diary page “operating” at a privacy level (Ex. 1001, 10:37–41),
`and it describes content objects “having” a privacy level (id. at 11:25–29).
`The “privacy level information” being claimed is part of “configuration
`information for controlling behavior of a cohesive diary page.” Ex. 1001,
`Claims 1, 17. The ’316 patent discloses that an owner can assign a “privacy
`level” to pages, sections, and content objects to control whether they are
`visible at the privacy level at which the diary page is operating. Ex. 1001,
`18:12–15 (“[T]he owner of the diary can control what is presented to various
`classes of persons via his diary” by “identify[ing] various pages, sections, or
`content objects as having a certain privacy level.”). Only content data with a
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`privacy level lower than or equal to the privacy level at which the diary page is
`operating is displayed. Id. at 18:17–20 (“[T]he diary applet generates HTML
`only for those portions of the diary that have a privacy level lower than or equal
`to the privacy level of the viewer who is viewing the diary.”).2 Specifically,
`“[t]he person viewing a diary page can only view that content marked as
`appropriate for him and other people at his privacy level.” Id. at 18:23–25.
`Similarly, “[a]ll users must enter an appropriate password before diary applet
`112 will generate HTML (for content objects) or otherwise reveal the existence
`of objects having those privacy levels (e.g., for named sections in the named
`section list 404).” Id. at 11:25–29. The privacy level information for a content
`object, therefore, specifies the privacy level at or above which the diary page
`must be operating in order for that content object to be displayed.
`Accordingly, we construe “privacy level information” to mean
`“configuration information that describes or specifies a level at, or above,
`which particular content data is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page.”
`
`B. Claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 –
`Obviousness over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker.
`Pet. 24–56. In support of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner relies
`upon the Declaration of Edward R. Tittel. Id. (citing Ex. 1002).
`
`
`2 Although these passages refer to the “privacy level of the viewer,” the ’316
`patent clarifies that the “privacy level” at which the diary page operates
`depends solely upon the password entered, not upon the identity of the viewer.
`Id. at 18:25–27 (“The diary applet of the described embodiment asks for a
`password to determine a privacy level of a person.”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that (1) neither Salas’s access control
`information nor Parker’s modified icons teach “privacy level information,”
`as it was construed in the Decision to Institute (PO Resp. 9–17, 46–47);
`(2) neither Salas nor Parker teach sending “privacy level information,” as
`properly construed (id. at 55); (3) Salas’s access control information is not
`sent to the user system, as required by claims 1 and 17 (id. at 18–43);
`(4) Parker’s access privileges are not sent to the user system, as required by
`claims 1 and 17 (id. at 43–45); and (5) a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have combined Salas and Parker because “in Salas every member
`of the e-room has viewing permission, both of the underlying files and the
`icons themselves” (id. at 56–60).
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel (1997), and Parker.
`1. Salas (Exhibit 1005)
`Salas describes a system and method for providing a collaborative
`work environment that includes servers and client workstations. Ex. 1005,
`Abstract. Client workstations receive data objects from one or more servers
`and combine the received data objects with stored templates to render
`HTML pages representing at least a portion of a common project. Id. Users
`may view, edit, and create common documents for the projects and upload
`them to the server using a drag-and-drop interface. Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`Figure 4 of Salas is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts an embodiment of eRoom page 60 that a user might
`encounter while using a browser program. Ex. 1005, 5:21–23. The eRoom
`page has five major elements: page element 402, navigation bar 404,
`graphical identifier 406, item box 408, and shortcut list 410. Id. at 5:24–27.
`Page element 402 may include sub-elements. Id. at 5:28. In the
`embodiment depicted, discussion 420 is embedded within page element 402
`and facility 422 allows a viewer to contribute to discussion 420. Id. at 5:28–
`31. Embedded discussion 420 and contribution facility 422 may be
`implemented as ActiveX controls, a JAVA applet, or other means. Id. at
`5:31–34.
`Graphical identifier 406 is used to pictorially identify the viewed
`page—e.g., a corporate logo or other organizational identifier. Id. at 5:54–
`56. Graphical identifier 406 may be static or dynamic (such as a javascript
`or ActiveX control). Ex. 1005, 5:56–58.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`Item box 408 collects and displays items associated with the project
`represented by page 402. Id. at 5:60–61. In the embodiment shown in
`Figure 4, item box 408 contains folder of items 482, notes file 486,
`spreadsheet file 488, and word processing file 490, each of these being links
`to other eRoom pages or files. Id. at 5:61–65. Item box 408 may also
`include version organizers, discussion, links, vote/poll pages, a facility for
`creating new items 492, and icons that control how items are displayed in
`item box 408. Id. at 5:65–6:4. In Figure 4, three icons are provided: “icon
`display” icon 494 (currently selected) which causes items to be displayed as
`large icons with identifying text underneath; “list display” icon 496 which
`causes items to be displayed as small icons with identifying text to one side
`of the icon; and “report display” icon which causes items to be displayed as
`a list. Id. at 6:4–10. The displayed list may be alphabetized, ordered by size
`of item, ordered by creation date, ordered by modification data, or ordered
`by some other data field associated with each item. Id. at 6:10–13.
`When a user requests the URL for an eRoom, the server returns an
`HTML file, called a “wrapper” file, that contains an object ID that is used by
`the client workstation to look up the object in the local database stored on
`the client workstation. Id. at 6:40–52. The local database includes
`information about the object, including which eRoom template to use and
`information regarding any “children” the object may have—e.g., items
`contained in item box 408. Id. at 6:52–56.
`Generation, display, and management of an eRoom are controlled by a
`“page builder” application residing on the client workstation. Id. at 6:57–59.
`In some embodiments, the page builder application may be an ActiveX
`control or a COM object. Id. at 6:61–63.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`2. Tittel (1997) (Exhibit 1006)
`Tittel (1997) describes the use of style sheets and ActiveX
`components. Ex. 1006, 58, 176, 341. Tittel (1997) describes how ActiveX
`components are automatically downloaded from a server if the object is not
`already on a user’s machine. Id. at 341. Tittel (1997) also describes how
`style sheets define a set of layout parameters for a document to ensure that
`similar elements in the document appear uniformly. Id. at 176.
`3. Parker (Exhibit 1011)
`Parker describes a file service administration method in a computer
`network having an administrator account and a user account. Ex. 1011,
`Abstract. The computer network includes at least one sharepoint that is
`selectively accessible through the user account. Id. Parker uses the term
`“sharepoint” to mean an item—e.g., file, folder, volume, hard disk—that is
`capable of being shared by network users. Id. at 2:24–26. The sharepoint is
`displayed in accordance with the user’s privileges by being represented in a
`first state when the access privilege for the user is enabled and being
`represented in a second state when the access privilege for the user is not
`enabled. Id. at Abstract.
`Figure 7 of Parker is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`Figure 7 shows a graphical user interface window in which two sharepoints
`are displayed in accordance with a user’s access privileges. Id. at 5:29–32,
`11:20–22. As depicted in Figure 7, “test folder-1” (417) is shown as
`accessible to the user by open lock icon 487 and because it is not ghosted,
`grayed out, or hidden. Id. at 11:40–44. In contrast, “test folder-2” (419) is
`in a ghosted state indicating that the user does not have access rights to “test
`folder-2.” Id. at 11:44–46. In other embodiments, “test folder-2” (419) may
`be grayed out, shaded, or hidden altogether. Id. at 11:46–47.
`4. Analysis
`Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`that claims 1, 4, 17, 18, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Salas, Tittel
`(1997), and Parker. Pet. 24–56.
`Independent claim 1 recites “sending diary information from the diary
`server to the user system, the information comprising content data including
`an associated time, a page design to specify the presentation of the content
`data, and configuration information for controlling behavior of a cohesive
`diary page, the configuration information including privacy level
`information.”
`For “content data including an associated time,” Petitioner relies upon
`entries under “Announcements,” and the representations of items in item box
`408. Id. at 32–33. The entries are time-stamped, and the representations of
`items include a creation date and a modification date; both, therefore,
`“includ[e] an associated time,” as recited. Id. at 33–35.
`For “page design,” Petitioner relies upon the “wrapper” file sent by
`the eRoom server to the user system. Id. at 35–36. The “wrapper” file
`“specif[ies] the presentation of the content data,” by specifying an eRoom
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`template to be used to assemble the page. Id. at 35–37. Petitioner also
`argues that it would have been obvious to modify the “wrapper” file of Salas
`to include a URL identifying an eRoom template stored on the eRoom
`server. Id. at 37–39 (citing Ex. 1002 (Tittel Decl.) ¶¶ 20–23, 73–75).
`For “configuration information including privacy level information,”
`Petitioner relies upon Salas’s teaching of entries in a database schema
`including three separate groups (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 14:30–54) and upon file
`metadata. Pet. 40–41. Petitioner further relies upon Salas’s teaching that
`file metadata includes “access information such as which users may open,
`view and edit the file” and is sent to client workstation 12 when
`synchronizing “local database metadata.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Salas’s “access information” is not “privacy
`level information,” as that term was construed in our Decision to Institute,
`because it does not relate to whether the user may view content on a
`cohesive diary page. PO Resp. 9. As Patent Owner explains, the “content
`data” relied upon by Petitioner are the “Announcements” and displayed file
`icons and associated file information, but not the underlying files
`themselves. Id. at 12–14 (citing Dec. to Inst. 15; Ex. 2013 (Tittel
`Deposition), 18:14–19:5, 22:25–23:6). According to Patent Owner, Salas’s
`“access information” file metadata—“such as which users may open, view,
`and edit the file” (Ex. 1006, 13:54–55)—pertains only to the files
`themselves, and does not concern the whether the user may view the recited
`“content data”—i.e., the Announcements and the file icons and associated
`file information. Id. at 14–15.
`Petitioner counters that Salas discloses “privacy level information” in
`the form of file metadata that includes “access information such as which
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`users may open, view, and edit the file.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (quoting Ex. 1005,
`13:52–57).
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed above,
`we construe “privacy level information” to mean “configuration information
`that describes or specifies a level at, or above, which particular content data
`is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page.” Salas teaches that file
`metadata includes “access information such as which users may open, view,
`and edit the file.” Ex. 1005, 13:54–55 (emphasis added). As Patent Owner
`correctly points out, the file is not “particular content on a cohesive diary
`page,” as our construction requires; the only “content on a cohesive diary
`page” related to the file is an icon. Even if the file was “content on a
`cohesive diary page,” Salas’s access information would still not be “privacy
`level information” because it does not describe or specify a level at, or
`above, which the file is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page. In that
`regard, Petitioner relies upon Parker’s teaching of visually indicating a
`user’s access level by ghosting out, greying out, shading, or hiding a folder
`icon and name. Pet. 43–46. According to Petitioner,
`This would predictably result in the eRoom system of Salas in
`which the ActiveX control running in the web browser obtains
`the file metadata identifying the access privileges of the user
`
`(Salas, 13:52‐57), and then uses it to generate the eRoom page
`
`with an item box (408) listing each file with a visual indication
`consistent with the viewing user’s access privileges (e.g.[,] fully
`visible, ghosted, grayed out, with a “lock icon,” etc.). (Tittel
`Decl. ¶ 88.)
`Pet. 46. Thus, Petitioner contends that by specifying a category of users
`permitted to open/view/edit non-content (i.e., a file), Salas’s access
`information also specifies a level (e.g., users-with-view-privileges level) at,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`or above, which the file is displayed as part of a cohesive diary page. For
`example, the technique of Parker may be used to hide the icon of a file
`whose file metadata specifies that the user does not have view privileges
`(i.e., is not at, or above, the users-with-view-privileges level). Ex. 1011,
`Figs. 6, 7, 11:4-47.
`As an initial matter, Salas’s user-based privileges are inconsistent with
`the description of a “privacy level” in the ’316 patent. As discussed above
`when construing “privacy level information,” neither the privacy level at
`which a content object is viewable nor the the privacy level at which a diary
`is operating depend upon the identity of a particular user. Ex. 1001, 10:29–
`33, 10:41–43, 11:24–29, 17:22–23, 18:25–27. The “privacy level
`information” for a content object specifies a level at which, not a user to
`whom, the object becomes visible. Id. Salas’s access information, in
`contrast, specifies users to whom the file is openable, viewable, and/or
`editable. Ex. 1005, 13:52–57.
`Even assuming that the group of users who can view a file constitutes
`a “privacy level,” Salas’s access information still would not be “privacy
`level information” because it would describe only a level at which non-
`content (i.e., a file)—not content (i.e., the icon associated with that file)—is
`displayed.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated,
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Salas, Tittel
`(1997), and Parker teaches “privacy level information,” as recited in
`independent claims 1 and 17.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00415
`Patent 6,415,316 B1
`
`
`a. Alternative construction of “privacy level information”
`Even if we were to modify our construction of “privacy level
`information” in the Decision to Institute only slightly to mean “configuration
`information that describes or specifies at least one user or category of users
`permitted to view particular content on a cohesive diary page,” we would
`still not be persuaded that the combination of Salas and Parker teaches
`“privacy level information.” Such a construction would be appropriate
`because our construction of “privacy level information” in the Decision to
`Institute is too broad. We agree with Patent Owner that “privacy level
`information” must be more than a password specific to a single user/viewer.
`As Patent Owner points out, the ’316 patent distinguishes a “privacy level”
`from a user-specific password. PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:2–4 (“The
`configuration information, such as privacy level, passwords, or the full name
`of the user, is user-specific.”)); see also id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:29–
`33, 17:21–23). Thus, although a privacy level may include only one user—
`e.g., “owner”—it must be capable of including multiple users, which a user-
`specific password is not. The use of “level” in the singular does not suggest
`otherwise. The fact that information relating to only one level, as opposed to
`a plurality of levels, meets the claim limitation does not imply, as Petitioner
`suggests, that a single user may be a “level.”
`Even under this alternative construction, we would still be persuaded
`by Patent Owner’s arguments that Salas and Parker do not teach “privacy
`level information.” Salas teaches that file metadata includes “access
`information such as which users may open, view, and edit the file.”
`Ex. 1005, 13:54–55 (emphasis added). As Patent Owner correctly points
`out, the file is not “parti