Paper 37
`Date: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMPLEAIR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMES P. CALVE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and TINA E. HULSE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMPLEAIR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMES P. CALVE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and TINA E. HULSE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. (“Google”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–17, 19–21, 24, 27, and
`
`29–34 of U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’154 patent”).
`
`Patent Owner SimpleAir, Inc. (“SimpleAir”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on these submissions, we instituted trial as
`
`to claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 29–31 of the ’154 patent. See
`
`Papers 11 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 15 (noting SimpleAir filed a statutory disclaimer
`
`of claims 19, 24, 27, 33, and 34 of the ’154 patent); Ex. 3002. SimpleAir
`
`filed a Response. Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”). Google filed a Reply. Paper 26
`
`(“Pet. Reply”).
`
`An oral argument was conducted on December 15, 2015. A transcript
`
`of the argument is entered in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties identify the following proceedings as affecting or being
`
`affected by a decision in this proceeding: SimpleAir, Inc. v. Amazon.com
`
`Inc., No. 2-14-cv-00679 (E.D. Tex.); SimpleAir, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No.
`
`2-11-cv-00416 (E.D. Tex.); SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2-13-cv-
`
`00587 (E.D. Tex.); SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2-13-cv-00937 (E.D.
`
`Tex.); and SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2-14-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Pet. 55; Paper 4, 1–2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`B. The ’154 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`The ’154 patent discloses wireless communication system 10. See Ex.
`
`1001, 5:40–43. Internet and on-line information sources 12 provide data
`
`feeds 16 to a network of servers 33 in central broadcast server 34 where data
`
`feeds are parsed, compressed, encrypted, and packetized for broadcast. Id.
`
`at 7:59–66. Central broadcast server 34 operates as a network operations
`
`center. Id. at 6:29–30. Data parsed from plural incoming data feeds 16 from
`
`information sources 12 is transmitted wirelessly by central broadcast server
`
`34 through wireless network 36 to connected and non-connected computing
`
`devices 14, as illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below. Id. at 6:46–50.
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a communication network. Once
`
`data is received at the user end, communications server 38 in message server
`
`design 18 notifies user interface panel 50, which presents an icon that, when
`
`clicked, notifies viewers 20 that are registered to display particular data on
`
`user computer 14 and alerts users to incoming messages. Id. at 6:52–62.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`Real time data feeds from information sources 12 are provided to a
`
`
`
`network of servers 33 in central broadcast server 34, such as FTP server 102
`
`and SMTP server 104, shown in Figure 2, reproduced below. Id. at 8:9–15.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of the wireless communication network of
`
`Figure 1. Data, such as stock quotes, weather, lotto, and email, are parsed
`
`by stock quote parser 106, weather parser 108, lotto parser 110, and mail
`
`parser 112, and transmitted to content manager 114 in central broadcast
`
`server 34. Id. at 8:16–21. Content manager 114 specifies priorities for
`
`different types of information, determines what information is transmitted or
`
`rejected, and also applies scheduling rules 132 to determine when messages
`
`are transmitted to users and the format used. Id. at 8:42–51. Content
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`manager 114 communicates with information gateway 134, which builds
`
`
`
`and addresses data blocks. Id. at 8:62–67, 22:13–18. Wireless gateway 136
`
`packetizes, compresses, and encrypts data blocks for transmission over
`
`wireless broadcast network 36. Id. at 9:18–20, 11:31–40.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
`
`1. A method to transmit data from an information source via
`a central broadcast server to remote computing devices, the
`method comprising:
`(a) generating data at the information source, wherein the
`information source is associated with an online service
`relating to the generated data;
`(b) identifying one or more users that have subscribed to
`receive a notification relating to the generated data;
`(c) transmitting the generated data to a central broadcast
`server configured to process the generated data using at
`least one parser and transmit the processed data to
`receivers
`communicatively
`coupled with
`remote
`computing devices associated with subscribed users,
`wherein the central broadcast server:
`(i) comprises one or more servers associated with a
`parser to parse the generated data received from the
`information source;
`least one
`to at
`(ii)
`is communicatively coupled
`information gateway,
`the
`information gateway
`configured to build data blocks from the parsed data
`and assign addresses to the data blocks; and
`(iii)
`is communicatively coupled
`to at
`least one
`transmission gateway,
`the
`transmission gateway
`configured to prepare the addressed data blocks for
`transmission to the receivers and configured to cause
`the addressed data blocks to be transmitted to the
`receivers, and wherein the transmission is made
`whether the remote computing devices are online or
`offline from a data channel associated with the remote
`computing devices.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art
`
`
`
`Google relies on the following references:
`
`Reference
`Kane
`
`Patent/Printed Publication
`WO 94/08419 A1
`
`Date
`Apr. 14, 1994
`
`Exhibit
`1009
`
`Verkler
`
`US 5,850,517
`
`Yan
`
`Simon
`
`
`
`Reilly
`
`SIFT – A Tool for Wide-Area
`Information Dissemination,
`Proceedings of the 1995
`USENIX Technical Conference,
`177–186
`The Windows 95 User
`Interface, PC Magazine, Vol.
`14, No. 13, 310–314
`US 5,740,549
`
`Olazabal
`
`US 5,323,148
`
`Dec. 15, 1998
`(filed Aug. 31,
`1995)
`Jan. 16–20,
`1995
`
`1040
`
`1042
`
`July 1995
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`Apr. 14, 1998
`(filed June 12,
`1995)
`June 21, 1994
`(filed May 9,
`1993)
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted proceedings as to claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 20,
`
`21, and 29–31 of the ’154 patent on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Yan, Kane
`
`§ 103
`
`1–3, 6, 8, 29
`
`Yan, Kane, Verkler
`
`§ 103
`
`4
`
`Yan, Kane, Reilly
`
`§ 103
`
`9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21
`
`Yan, Kane, Olazabal
`
`Yan, Kane, Reilly, Simon
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`13
`
`Yan, Kane, Verkler, Reilly
`
`§ 103
`
`30, 31
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claims of an unexpired patent are given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly
`
`adopted by PTO regulation”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs.
`
`LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218 (Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary, customary meaning as
`
`understood by a skilled artisan in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`In co-pending litigation for U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914 B1 (“the ’914
`
`patent”), a parent of the ’154 patent, the district court interpreted terms of
`
`the ’914 patent. Ex. 1026. Google sets forth the district court’s construction
`
`of seven limitations and asserts the Board may adopt a broader construction
`
`but should not read identical claim terms more narrowly than the district
`
`court did for the ’914 patent. Pet. 9–11; see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 73–74. SimpleAir
`
`argues that the district court’s constructions are consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of those terms. PO Resp. 8; see Ex. 2005 ¶ 73.
`
`On April 27, 2015, the district court in co-pending litigation relating
`
`to the ’154 patent construed terms of the ’154 patent. Ex. 3001. The district
`
`court’s interpretations are largely the same as the interpretations proposed by
`
`the parties and are set forth below. See id. at 8–70. Google agrees that the
`
`district court’s interpretations also represent the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the terms for purposes of this proceeding. Tr. 9:9–20.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`Claim Term
`“data channel”
`
`“whether the remote computing
`devices are online or offline from a
`data channel associated with the
`remote computing devices”
`
`“an information source”
`
`“process the generated data using at
`least one parser”
`
`“at least one information gateway,
`the information gateway configured
`to build data blocks from the parsed
`data and assign addresses to the
`data blocks”
`
`
`
`
`Construction
`“one or more communication
`channels or paths for accessing or
`viewing a category or subcategory of
`information that is provided by an
`information source over a
`communications network”
`(Ex. 3001, 61)
`“whether the remote computing
`devices are or are not connected via
`the Internet or another online service
`to a data channel associated with
`each computing device at the time
`the addressed data block is received
`by the receivers, wherein the data
`channel is for accessing information
`from the information source that sent
`the data” (Ex. 3001, 61–62)
`“one or more content or online
`service providers that provide data to
`the central broadcast server, such as
`an online source of news, weather,
`sports, financial information, games,
`personal messages, or emails”
`(Ex. 3001, 8–9)
`“using one or more computer
`software programs, routines, or
`functions to break or divide data
`received from an information source
`into components whose content or
`format can be analyzed, processed or
`acted upon” (Ex. 3001, 33)
`“one or more software programs (or
`a portion of a program) that act as an
`interface between other software
`resources and that build data blocks
`from the parsed data and assign
`addresses to the data blocks”
`(Ex. 3001, 40–41)
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`Claim Term
`“at least one transmission gateway,
`the transmission gateway
`configured to prepare the addressed
`data blocks for transmission to the
`receivers and configured to cause
`the addressed data blocks to be
`transmitted to the receivers”
`
`“a central broadcast server”
`
`“contextual graphics”
`
`
`
`
`Construction
`“one or more software programs (or
`a portion of a program) that interface
`with other resources used to transmit
`the addressed data blocks and that
`are configured to prepare the
`addressed data blocks for
`transmission to receivers and
`configured to cause the addressed
`data blocks to be transmitted to the
`receivers” (Ex. 3001, 51)
`“one or more servers that are
`configured to receive data from a
`plurality of information sources and
`process the data prior to its
`transmission to one or more selected
`remote computing devices”
`(Ex. 3001, 29)
`“graphics relating to the context of
`the transmitted data that has been
`receive[d]” (Ex. 3001, 70)
`
`
`After considering the trial record, we determine that the constructions
`
`set forth above are consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`those terms and adopt these constructions for purposes of this Final Written
`
`Decision.1
`
`
`1 It appears that the ’154 patent will expire on January 24, 2017. Under the
`facts developed during trial, our constructions of these terms would not vary
`under the Phillips standard, which the district court applied. See Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1311–24 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex. 3001, 3.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`1. Claims 1–3, 6, 8, and 29
`Obvious over Yan and Kane
`
`a. Overview of Yan (Ex. 1042)
`
`Yan describes an information dissemination service using a Stanford
`
`Information Filtering Tool (SIFT) that filters large volumes of information
`
`against a large number of user/subscriber profiles. Ex. 1042, Abstract, 178.
`
`SIFT filtering engines operate on hardware such as a DECstation 5000/240.
`
`Id. at 180. Figure 1 of Yan, reproduced below, illustrates this system.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 provides an overview of SIFT. Id. at 179.
`
`Users send subscription requests to a SIFT server via email or a World
`
`Wide Web (“WWW”) graphical client interface specifying areas of interest,
`
`such as underwater archeology. Id. at 179. As the SIFT server receives new
`
`documents, the filtering engine processes them against stored subscriptions
`
`and sends out notifications based on user-specified parameters. Id. A SIFT
`
`server sends email messages with excerpts of a certain number of lines (as
`
`specified by the user) of new, potentially relevant documents. Id. at 180.
`
`After reading the excerpt, a user may access the SIFT server to retrieve the
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`entire document via an email interface or WWW viewer. Id. Thus, users
`
`
`
`can access the Netnews SIFT server via email or the WWW. Id. Users may
`
`access their local news host to access an article, or they may request that the
`
`entire article be sent from the SIFT server. Id. at 181.
`
`Yan discloses use of a SIFT server to disseminate tens of thousands of
`
`Netnews articles daily to some 13,000 subscribers. Id. at 178. Yan discloses
`
`another SIFT server disseminating Computer Science Technical Reports to
`
`around 1,000 subscribers. Id. at 181. Yan discloses that limits to the load a
`
`SIFT server can handle require SIFT servers to be replicated at other sites in
`
`the United States and Europe to provide the same service. Id. at 180.
`
`b. Overview of Kane (Ex. 1009)
`
`Kane discloses electronic mail message delivery system 100, which
`
`includes electronic mail network 113 and paging terminal 102 that receives,
`
`stores, encodes, and transmits email messages over a paging communication
`
`channel to remote selective call receiver 130. Ex. 1009, Abstract. Figure 1,
`
`reproduced below, illustrates this system.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a communication system. System 100
`
`
`
`includes encoder 120, communication path 122, and transmitters 124, 126,
`
`to deliver messages to portable remote units (call receiver 130). Id. at 4:3–
`
`13. Central terminal 102 has input sections 110 that interface with public
`
`switched telephone network (PSTN) 107 so personal computers and other
`
`computing devices 104 can access input sections 110 and central terminal
`
`102 through PSTN 107 using a dial-up telephone line and modem. Id. at
`
`4:7–18. Other input sections 112 of central terminal 102 receive requests
`
`from local personal computers, a console, or other terminal device. Id. at
`
`4:26–30. Controller 114 couples messages to paging encoder 120 over bus
`
`116 for encoding the messages for transmission over a paging channel. Id.
`
`at 6:1–3. Paging encoder 120 couples encoded messages to communication
`
`path 122 and paging transmitter systems 124, 126, for transmission over a
`
`paging communication channel and reception by one or more selective call
`
`receivers 130. Id. at 6:3–6, Fig. 1.
`
`c. Analysis
`
`Regarding claim 1, Google asserts that Yan discloses a method to
`
`transmit data from an information source via a central broadcast server, as a
`
`SIFT server disseminates tens of thousands of Netnews articles daily and can
`
`disseminate additional sources such as Computer Science Technical Reports.
`
`Pet. 20. Google asserts that Kane discloses email delivery system 100 and
`
`email network 113 that deliver messages from originating devices to remote
`
`computing devices 130. Id. Google asserts that it would have been obvious
`
`to use Kane’s email delivery system to deliver email notifications from
`
`Yan’s SIFT server as a way to improve a similar system for predictable
`
`results. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`The dispositive issue with respect to claim 1 is whether Yan teaches
`
`
`
`or suggests a “central broadcast server.” Under our interpretation set forth
`
`above, a “central broadcast server” can be (1) a single server configured to
`
`receive data from plural information sources or (2) multiple servers that are
`
`collectively configured to receive data from plural information sources. As
`
`set forth more fully below, Google has not established by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that Yan teaches or suggests a single server configured to receive
`
`data from multiple information sources, or multiple servers configured as a
`
`central broadcast server to receive data from multiple information sources.
`
`Single server receiving data from plural information sources
`
`A central broadcast server can comprise a single server if that server is
`
`configured to receive data from multiple information sources. We interpret
`
`“an information source,” in part, as “one or more content or online service
`
`providers that provide data to the central broadcast server.”
`
`Google asserts that Yan discloses two SIFT servers, each of which
`
`receives data from a single information source. See Pet. 20. Google asserts
`
`that “Yan discloses an information source whose information is associated
`
`with an online service, e.g., ‘Netnews is an extremely diverse source of
`
`information.’” Pet. 22 (emphasis added). Google also asserts that Yan “set
`
`up another SIFT server, disseminating Computer Science Technical
`
`Reports.” Id. at 20 (quoting Ex. 1042, 181). However, Google asserts that a
`
`single Netnews SIFT server is the central broadcast server. Id. at 23–24.
`
`Google also contends that the Netnews system provides the articles from an
`
`electronic bulletin board system. Id. at 22–23. Google’s contention that
`
`Yan discloses a single SIFT server that disseminates Netnews articles and
`
`another SIFT server that disseminates Computer Science Technical Reports
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`does not persuade us that Yan discloses a single SIFT server configured to
`
`
`
`receive data from multiple information sources. See Pet. 20; Pet. Reply 3.
`
`Google’s declarant, Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D., treats Netnews as an
`
`information source. Ex. 1070 ¶ 4 (opining that Yan discloses a central
`
`broadcast server as “a SIFT server distributing Netnews articles and a SIFT
`
`server distributing computer science technical reports—that receive
`
`information from two information sources, one for Netnews and one for
`
`technical reports.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 96 (stating Netnews, an online information
`
`source, “provides articles from an electronic bulletin board service”).
`
`In its Reply, Google asserts that Yan’s Netnews SIFT server receives
`
`information from a plurality of information sources. Pet. Reply 4. Google
`
`asserts that Netnews is a network of News Servers or News Hosts and when
`
`Yan’s SIFT server receives articles from a local news host, the articles
`
`originate from Netnews servers around the world and each of these servers is
`
`an information source. Id. at 4–5. Google thus contends that Yan’s SIFT
`
`server receives data from multiple information sources indirectly through an
`
`intermediate device, i.e., a local Netnews news host. Id. at 5.
`
`We are not persuaded by this argument. Although Yan discloses that
`
`the Netnews SIFT server receives tens of thousands of Netnews articles
`
`daily, the articles come from a single electronic bulletin board (Pet. 23) or
`
`Netnews Host, as Google acknowledges. See Ex. 1042, 177–79, 181–82,
`
`Fig. 1; Pet. Reply 4. Thus, the Netnews SIFT server, which Google asserts
`
`to be a central broadcast server (Pet. 23), is configured to receive all
`
`Netnews data from a single information source – a local host. Ex. 1042, 182
`
`(38,000 Netnews articles were received by “our department’s news host”
`
`and filtered with subscriber profiles in the Netnews SIFT server); PO Resp.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`18. SimpleAir’s declarant, James Knox, Ph.D., testified that Yan’s SIFT
`
`
`
`server is configured to receive articles from a single information provider, a
`
`Netnews news host. Ex. 2005 ¶ 103. Dr. Madisetti testified that Yan’s SIFT
`
`server is configured for Netnews only and is connected to only one Netnews
`
`server. Ex. 2006, 33:4–8, 51:19–52:12 (“There is just one Netnews server
`
`that is connected to the Netnews SIFT server in Yan.”), 57:10–20; Ex. 1070
`
`¶ 7 (testifying that users access Netnews articles through a newsreader that is
`
`connected to a “local Netnews host,” although the articles originate from
`
`Netnews servers around the world); Tr. 13:24–14:2 (acknowledging that the
`
`“Netnews SIFT server . . . would be receiving from a Netnews server”
`
`(emphasis added)). This testimony from the parties’ declarants is supported
`
`by the disclosure of Yan itself, as explained above. Google therefore has not
`
`established Yan’s Netnews SIFT server as being configured to receive data
`
`from more than one information source.
`
`Google also asserts that “Yan suggests that any of the SIFT servers
`
`could have additional sources of information” by teaching that “[s]ifting
`
`Netnews is just one application of SIFT” and “[w]e have set up another SIFT
`
`server, disseminating Computer Science Technical Reports.” Pet. 20
`
`(quoting Ex. 1042, 181). This portion of Yan does not disclose a single
`
`SIFT server configured to receive data from multiple information sources,
`
`however. Rather, Yan teaches that a second SIFT server is used to receive
`
`and disseminate data from a second information source – Computer Science
`
`Technical Reports. Ex. 1042, 181; PO Resp. 18–19; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 104–105.
`
`Google further asserts that Dr. Knox agreed that an information
`
`source need not provide the data directly to the central broadcast server. Pet.
`
`Reply 5. This argument is not persuasive either. When asked whether a
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`Netnews server that was coupled to another server that was sending
`
`
`
`information to users would be an information source, Dr. Knox testified, “I
`
`don’t see any reason based just on what you said that it would be no.”
`
`Ex. 1065, 27:8–9. Thus, Dr. Knox did not agree that a remote server
`
`transmitting information to a user via a local server is an information source
`
`as recited in claim 1. Even if he had, his testimony would be inapposite
`
`because we interpret “information source,” in part, as “one or more content
`
`or online service providers that provide data to the central broadcast
`
`server.” The relevant inquiry is the provision of data to a central broadcast
`
`server, not to a user. Dr. Knox testified that data travels over the Internet via
`
`backbone routers, servers, and other things. Id. at 157:1–4. This testimony
`
`does not support a finding that Yan’s Netnews SIFT server is configured to
`
`receive data from more than one information source, however.
`
`For all these reasons, Google has not established that a Netnews SIFT
`
`server is a central broadcast server, which must be configured to receive data
`
`from multiple information sources.
`
`Plural servers receiving data from plural information sources
`
`Google also asserts that Yan discloses a central broadcast server as a
`
`SIFT server that distributes Netnews articles and another SIFT server that
`
`distributes Computer Science Technical Reports. Pet. Reply 3 (citing Pet.
`
`20). Google does not explain sufficiently how these two different SIFT
`
`servers collectively comprise a central broadcast server configured to receive
`
`data from more than one information source, rather than two individual
`
`servers, each of which receives data separately from a single information
`
`source, i.e., Netnews or computer science technical reports. Pet. 20; Pet.
`
`Reply 3.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`
`In the Petition, Google asserts that Yan discloses a method to transmit
`
`data from an information source via a central broadcast server, as recited in
`
`the preamble of claim 1, by a SIFT server disseminating Netnews articles
`
`daily and another SIFT server disseminating Computer Science Technical
`
`Reports. Pet. 20. Google did not assert that these two separate SIFT servers
`
`together form a central broadcast server. Id. at 23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–100,
`
`Claim Chart A, 1.3, 1.3a. Google relied on Yan’s Netnews SIFT server to
`
`disclose a central broadcast server by asserting “Yan discloses a central
`
`broadcast server which receives and parses data” and as “the SIFT server
`
`receives new documents [from Netnews], the filtering engine will process
`
`them against stored subscriptions.” Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1042, 179).
`
`Dr. Madisetti also testified that a single Netnews SIFT server is the central
`
`broadcast server that receives documents from a single information source –
`
`Netnews – and parses the data. Ex. 1002 ¶ 98, Claim Chart A, 1.3.
`
`Google asserts in the Petition that “Yan discloses parsing the received
`
`data message where the processing involves parsing of the documents by the
`
`SIFT server because a part of a document (a number of lines) is identified
`
`and serves as the excerpt in an email message.” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1042,
`
`180) (emphasis added). This portion of Yan discusses a single SIFT server
`
`that receives and disseminates only Netnews articles. Ex. 1042, 180. The
`
`Petition does not explain how a Netnews SIFT server and a separate SIFT
`
`server for Computer Science Technical Reports form a central broadcast
`
`server, or how they are “associated with a parser,” as claimed. Google does
`
`not assert that the separate SIFT servers work with the same parser or share
`
`a single parser that parses for both servers. Tr. 49:1–24 (discussing the
`
`shared functionality of a single parser “associated with” multiple servers).
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`
`Google and Dr. Madisetti illustrate Yan’s “Central Broadcast Server”
`
`
`
`as a single SIFT engine receiving information from a single “Information
`
`Source” with Kane’s Gateways, reproduced below. Pet. 19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 88.
`
`
`
`Google’s figure above combines Figure 1 of Yan with Figure 1 of
`
`Kane. Neither Google nor Dr. Madisetti explain how Yan’s separate SIFT
`
`servers are configured as a central broadcast server to receive data from a
`
`plurality of information sources. See Pet. 23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88, 89, 95–98.
`
`Google belatedly asserts in its Reply that a Netnews SIFT server that
`
`receives data from one information source (Netnews) and a separate SIFT
`
`server that receives data from another information source (Computer Science
`
`Technical Reports) together form a central broadcast server (Pet. Reply 3–
`
`5). See PO Resp. 19–20. This theory for how Yan allegedly teaches the
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`“central broadcast server” limitation of claim 1, however, was not set forth
`
`
`
`in the Petition, and is inappropriate to raise for the first time in a reply. See
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,620 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Oppositions and replies may
`
`rely upon appropriate evidence to support the positions asserted. Reply
`
`evidence, however, must be responsive and not merely new evidence that
`
`could have been presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.”); see
`
`also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“petition must specify where each element of
`
`the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied
`
`upon”); Pet. 23–25 (identifying only a single Netnews SIFT server as the
`
`central broadcast server that “comprises one or more servers” as claimed).
`
`Regardless, though, Google’s argument is not supported by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 18–19. Google has not explained
`
`sufficiently how two separate servers, each of which is configured to receive
`
`data from a different single information source, disclose a central broadcast
`
`server, which must be configured to receive information from multiple
`
`information sources. In essence, Google would read the term “central” out
`
`of “central broadcast server” so any two separate servers would be a central
`
`broadcast server no matter how they are configured or related to one another.
`
`Tr. 15:21–16:22. We, however, decline to do so. See Stumbo v. Eastman
`
`Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim
`
`constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous). Rather, we agree
`
`with Patent Owner that two servers that are “separately configured to receive
`
`and independently broadcast data from two different information sources”
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`do not constitute a “central broadcast server” as we have interpreted the
`
`
`
`term. See PO Resp. 9.
`
`Yan discloses each SIFT server as self-contained and independently
`
`operated with separate subscriber lists. Ex. 1042, 181. A user “subscribes to
`
`a SIFT server with one or more subscriptions.” Id. at 179 (emphasis added).
`
`Each SIFT server processes data from a separate source. Id. at 180–81. The
`
`Netnews SIFT server filters data from Netnews differently and separately
`
`from the Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT server. Id. at 185.
`
`Dr. Knox testifies that Yan does not disclose any connection between
`
`the Netnews SIFT server and Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT
`
`server. Ex. 2005 ¶ 108. Dr. Madisetti agrees that these two SIFT servers are
`
`not connected. Ex. 2006, 51:9–17, 54:17–55:5; see PO Resp. 20. Dr. Knox
`
`also testifies that Yan uses two separate SIFT servers to process data from
`
`two different information sources independently using different filters, and
`
`teaches away from a central broadcast server configured to receive data from
`
`multiple information sources. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 103–14. Dr. Knox’s testimony is
`
`supported by the evidence of record and is persuasive.
`
`To characterize Yan’s two SIFT servers as a network of servers in a
`
`central broadcast server because they are on the Stanford.edu network, as
`
`Google asserts for claim 62 (Pet. Reply 18–19; Ex. 1070 ¶ 15), is tantamount
`
`to saying any server on the stanford.edu network is part of the same network
`
`and the same central broadcast server. Google has not pointed to persuasive
`
`evidence that these two SIFT servers are interconnected or networked as a
`
`
`2 Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites that “the central broadcast
`server comprises a network of servers.”
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00180
`Patent 8,601,154 B2
`
`
`central broadcast server, as claimed. See Tr. 24:10–14 (acknowledging that
`
`
`
`Yan does not teach any communication between the Netnews SIFT server
`
`and Computer Science Technical Reports SIFT server). Dr. Madisetti’s first
`
`declaration does not address this issue. Ex. 1002 ¶ 121.
`
`In his Rebuttal Declaration, Dr. Madisetti testifies that using the same
`
`stanford.edu DNS suffix means that the two SIFT servers are on the same IP
`
`subnet, which means the two servers are networked as a network of servers.
`
`Ex. 1070 ¶ 15. Dr. Knox testifies that sharing the same email sub-domain
`
`does not mean the two SIFT servers are on the same local network, let alone
`
`that they are interconnected in any way. Ex. 2005 ¶ 115. Dr. Knox testifies
`
`that the sub-domains indicate the two SIFT servers are both associated with
`
`the Stanford database organizational group, not the same physical network.
`
`Id. We agree with Dr. Knox’s
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
