throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket