throbber
Paper 17
`Entered: August 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’ LIQUIDATING TRUST,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-006621
`Patent 6,014,698
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00666 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. filed two Petitions requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–20, 22–31, 34–39, 41–47, and 49 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698 (Ex. 1001, “the ’698 patent”)2 pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, as listed in the following chart.
`
`Case Number
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Petition
`
`IPR2015-00662 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–16,
`and 23
`
`Paper 2
`(“Pet.”)
`
`IPR2015-00666 17–20, 22–31, 34–39,
`41–47, and 49
`
`Paper 2
`(“-666 Pet.”)
`
`On August 14, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–3,
`
`5–7, 9, 11–20, 22, 24–31, 34–39, 41–47, and 49 on two grounds of
`
`unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-00666 with Case
`
`IPR2015-00662 (Paper 14, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner At Home
`
`Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 22,
`
`“PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 34, “Reply”). A combined
`
`oral hearing for this proceeding and Case IPR2015-00657 was held on April
`
`7, 2016, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record (Paper 39,
`
`“Tr.”).
`
`We have 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.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–20, 22, 24–31,
`
`34–39, 41–47, and 49 are unpatentable.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, references to papers and exhibits are to those
`filed in Case IPR2015-00662.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`
`A. The ’698 Patent3
`
`The ’698 patent describes a “system for the storage, management, and
`
`delivery of information on a computer network” that provides for the
`
`“efficient and accurate counting of advertising information displayed on
`
`terminals connected to the computer network.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 19–23.
`
`According to the ’698 patent, prior art systems could not count accurately
`
`the number of times a banner (e.g., a graphic of an advertisement) is
`
`displayed to users due to the use of caching. Id. at col. 3, ll. 16–37, col. 6,
`
`ll. 22–29, col. 7, ll. 9–20. For example, when a web page and associated
`
`banner are stored on a user’s terminal or an intermediary proxy server
`
`connected to the user’s terminal, a subsequent request for the information
`
`may be satisfied from the cache, such that no request is forwarded over the
`
`computer network to a server and the server cannot obtain an accurate count
`
`of banner displays. Id. at col. 13, ll. 1–14, Fig. 3. Prior art systems
`
`attempted to overcome this problem by prohibiting caching on the user’s
`
`terminal or proxy server, but doing so introduced other problems, such as
`
`increased network traffic and increased retrieval time due to the need to
`
`retransmit the information over the network every time it is requested. Id.
`
`at col. 13, l. 40–col. 14, l. 44.
`
`The ’698 patent states that its disclosed system is able to count
`
`accurately banner displays while at the same time taking advantage of the
`
`performance gains obtained from caching. Id. at col. 14, ll. 45–57. The
`
`user’s terminal first requests and receives a web page that has an associated
`
`banner. Id. at col. 9, ll. 38–49. The terminal then sends an initial banner
`
`
`3 The ’698 patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045 B1
`(“the ’045 patent”), which is being challenged in Case IPR2015-00657.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`request signal, which may include a general content Uniform Resource
`
`Locator (“URL”) address that does not specify which banner is to be
`
`displayed. Id. at col. 17, ll. 34–38, Fig. 4 (step 112). Because software on
`
`the user’s terminal (e.g., web browser) or a proxy server might block the
`
`initial banner request signal if the banner had been cached previously, the
`
`strings “cgi-bin” and “?” may be included in the signal to “prevent[] the
`
`terminal from blocking” the signal. Id. at col. 19, ll. 24–57. Then, rather
`
`than returning the banner itself (as in the prior art), the recipient of the initial
`
`banner request signal selects which banner is to be displayed on the terminal,
`
`increments the count of displays, and returns a banner address to the user’s
`
`terminal. Id. at col. 15, ll. 42–56, Fig. 4 (steps 113 and 114). The return
`
`information may be, for example, a specific content URL address in the
`
`form of a “Status HTTP 302 Redirect (temporary) signal” indicating where
`
`the selected banner is stored. Id. at col. 17, ll. 38–49. The user’s terminal
`
`then retrieves the banner, either from a local cache or proxy server cache, or
`
`a remote server if the banner had not been cached. Id. at col. 15, l. 60–col.
`
`16, l. 34. In that way, the disclosed system is able to maintain an accurate
`
`count of banner displays, while also retaining the performance benefits of
`
`caching. Id. at col. 14, ll. 45–57.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’698 patent recites:
`
`1. A method for delivering information to a terminal
`connected
`to a computer network, wherein
`information
`delivered over the computer network from a primary server to
`the terminal contains references to other information to be
`delivered to the terminal from the primary server or from one or
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`
`more other servers connected to the computer network,
`comprising:
`
`serving a first portion of information to the terminal,
`wherein said first portion of information contains a reference to
`a second portion of information;
`
`sending a first request signal from the terminal to the
`primary server requesting a location address for said second
`portion of information from which said second portion of
`information can be served to the terminal, wherein said first
`request signal cannot be blocked from reaching said primary
`server by either the terminal or any intermediary device located
`topologically between the terminal and the primary server as a
`result of previous caching or storing of said first portion of
`information or said second portion of information by the
`terminal or said intermediary device;
`
`sending a location signal from the primary server to the
`terminal providing said location address of said second portion
`of information; and
`
`determining if said second portion of information is
`already stored on the terminal and, if said second portion of
`information is not already stored on the terminal, sending a
`second request signal from the terminal containing said location
`address of said second portion of information and requesting
`that said second portion of information be served to the
`terminal for display on the terminal, and, if said second portion
`of information is already stored on the terminal, displaying said
`second portion of information on the terminal.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art
`
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in the instant inter partes
`
`review are based on the following prior art:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,952, filed Mar. 21, 1997, issued
`Aug. 18, 1998 (Ex. 1014, “Davis”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,811, filed Aug. 20, 1996, issued
`Aug. 3, 1999 (Ex. 1012, “Angles”);
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,948,061, filed Oct. 29, 1996, issued
`Sept. 7, 1999 (Ex. 1013, “Merriman”); and
`
`T. Berners-Lee et al., HYPERTEXT TRANSFER PROTOCOL –
`HTTP/1.0, HTTP Working Group INTERNET-DRAFT, Feb.
`19, 1996 (Ex. 1008, “HTTP1.0”).4
`
`
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Angles, Merriman, and
`HTTP1.0
`
`Angles, Merriman,
`HTTP1.0, and Davis
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–20,
`22, 24–30, 34–39,
`and 41–47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 31 and 49
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be
`
`applied in inter partes reviews). Under this standard, we interpret claim
`
`terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
`
`usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
`
`
`4 When citing HTTP1.0, we refer to the page numbers at the bottom of each
`page. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
`
`may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
`
`specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be
`
`given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification and prosecution history.”); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is
`
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A patentee, however, may
`
`rebut this presumption by acting as his or her own lexicographer, providing a
`
`definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the term “banner” in the
`
`challenged claims to mean information displayed in conjunction with a web
`
`page, and concluded that no further interpretation was necessary.5 Dec. on
`
`Inst. 7–9. The parties do not dispute this interpretation in their Patent Owner
`
`Response and Reply, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that
`
`
`5 We also interpreted “content specific request signal” in dependent claims 7
`and 20, and resolved various antecedent basis issues in dependent claims 9
`and 23. Dec. on Inst. 9–12. Because Petitioner has not shown, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged independent claims are
`unpatentable for the reasons explained herein, we need not revisit the
`interpretation of the dependent claims.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`compels any deviation from the earlier interpretation. Accordingly, we
`
`adopt our previous analysis for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a)). Petitioner argued in its Petition that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have had “at least (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`computer science and/or a similar field or (b) at least 3 years of experience
`
`in web-based information management and delivery systems.” Pet. 14
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–14, Ex. 1005 ¶ 13). In its Preliminary Responses,
`
`Patent Owner disputed this definition because it would encompass “a person
`
`with 3 years of experience designing web pages,” and instead proposed a
`
`person with “at least (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or
`
`a similar field or (b) 3 years of experience in programming web-based
`
`information management and delivery systems.” Paper 10, 17. We agreed
`
`with Patent Owner for purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst.
`
`17–18.
`
`During trial, the parties continued to dispute whether “programming”
`
`web-based information management and delivery systems is part of the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 32; Reply 19–20. We conclude
`
`that it is. The ’698 patent describes a “system for the storage, management,
`
`and delivery of information on a computer network,” in particular a system
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`that provides for “efficient and accurate counting of advertising information
`
`displayed on terminals connected to the computer network.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, ll. 18–22. It discloses an exemplary computer network with
`
`terminals, web servers, and proxy servers that communicate with each other,
`
`and describes various problems and solutions, all of which pertain to how
`
`the system components are programmed to facilitate the accurate counting of
`
`advertising information. Id. at col. 5, l. 16–col. 14, l. 44, Figs. 1, 3, 4. For
`
`example, the ’698 patent discloses that in prior art systems, “not all requests
`
`for . . . banner information are forwarded by the user’s terminal or respective
`
`proxy server,” resulting in the inaccurate counting of banner displays, and
`
`one potential solution is to program the system to “prevent banner
`
`information from being stored or cached on either the user’s terminal or the
`
`proxy server.” Id. at col. 13, ll. 1–57. Doing so, however, increases network
`
`traffic and reduces the “speed at which the information is displayed on the
`
`user’s terminal.” Id. at col. 13, l. 58–col. 14, l. 31. The disclosed method
`
`purports to solves the problems in the prior art by accurately counting
`
`banner displays while at the same time “taking advantage of the performance
`
`gains possible with caching proxy servers.” Id. at col. 14, ll. 45–57. The
`
`cited prior art similarly discloses problems and potential solutions that
`
`pertain to how web-based information management and delivery systems are
`
`programmed to operate. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, col. 7, l. 43–col. 16, l. 44;
`
`Ex. 1013, col. 2, l. 59–col. 4, l. 43.
`
`Based on our review of the ’698 patent, the types of problems and
`
`solutions described in the ’698 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`
`of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`similar field, or three years of experience in programming web-based
`
`information management and delivery systems. We apply this level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.6
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness Ground Based on Angles, Merriman, and HTTP1.0
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11–20, 22, 24–30, 34–39,
`
`and 41–47 are unpatentable over Angles, Merriman, and HTTP1.0 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Pet. 16–39; -666 Pet. 16–38. We have reviewed the
`
`Petitions, Patent Owner Response, and Reply, as well as the evidence
`
`discussed in each of those papers, and are not persuaded, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the
`
`asserted ground.
`
`
`
`1. Angles
`
`Angles describes a method and system for “delivering customized
`
`electronic advertisements in an interactive communication system.”
`
`Ex. 1012, Abstract. Angles’s system interconnects multiple consumer
`
`computers, content provider computers, and Internet provider computers
`
`
`6 Given the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth above, we are not
`persuaded that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Peter Kent, is entitled
`to little or no weight, as Patent Owner argues, merely because Mr. Kent
`“admits that he has little experience programming web servers.” See
`PO Resp. 32. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that
`Mr. Kent has been programming web sites (including e-commerce sites)
`since 1993, worked with scripting languages, and has authored books on
`programming JavaScript—all of which fall under the rubric of experience in
`programming web-based information management and delivery systems.
`See Reply 19. Nevertheless, whether an expert’s opinion is entitled to any
`particular weight is an inquiry we exercise on an issue-by-issue basis.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`with an advertisement provider computer. Id. Figure 4 of Angles is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As depicted in Figure 4, consumer computer 12 registers with advertisement
`
`provider computer 18 (event A), which assigns the consumer a consumer
`
`member code 22, content provider computer 14 registers with advertisement
`
`provider computer 18 (event B), and consumer computer 12 establishes a
`
`communication link with content provider computer 14 (event C) to request
`
`information. Id. at col. 16, l. 56–col. 18, l. 41.
`
`Content provider computer 14 sends electronic page 32 to consumer
`
`computer 12 (event D). Id. at col. 12, ll. 5160, col. 18, l. 41–43. Electronic
`
`page 32 contains advertising insert 56, which is a place-holder configured to
`
`contain customized advertisement 30 generated by advertisement provider
`
`computer 18. Id. at col. 12, ll. 54–58. Advertising insert 56 contains
`
`advertisement request 26, which references a content provider Common
`
`Gateway Interface (CGI) script 64 that exists on advertisement provider
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`computer 18. Id. at col. 12, l. 67–col. 13, l. 4. “Preferably, the advertising
`
`request 26 is an HTML [HyperText Markup Language] tag which identifies
`
`1) the content provider script and 2) the content provider member code and
`
`3) the Internet address or URL of the advertisement provider computer 18.”
`
`Id. at col. 13, ll. 4–7. Consumer computer 12 processes advertising insert 56
`
`and, based on the HTML tag, sends a signal to advertisement provider
`
`computer 18 requesting execution of the CGI script (event E). Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 39–51, col. 18, l. 44–57, col. 19, ll. 31–40. Consumer computer 12 also
`
`provides consumer member code 22 to advertisement provider computer 18.
`
`Id. at col. 18, l. 59–60.
`
`Advertisement provider computer 18 executes content provider
`
`script 64, identifies the consumer, identifies the content provider being
`
`accessed by the consumer, selects a particular advertisement for the
`
`consumer, and sends customized advertisement 30 to consumer computer 12
`
`(event F). Id. at col. 8, ll. 56–61, col. 13, ll. 16–19, col. 18, l. 61–col. 19,
`
`l. 1. Consumer computer 12 merges and displays electronic page 32 with
`
`customized advertisement 30. Id. at col. 8, ll. 62–65, col. 19, ll. 1–3.
`
`Angles further describes an embodiment in which consumer computer
`
`12 includes advertising storage medium 44, which can be a compact disk
`
`drive and compact disk, to store a variety of advertisements that can be
`
`retrieved and displayed by consumer computer 12. Id. at col. 11, ll. 5055.
`
`In this embodiment, an “advertisement command” is returned in event F,
`
`rather than customized advertisement 30. Id. at col. 11, l. 66–col. 12, l. 2,
`
`col. 23, ll. 28–56. The advertisement command “identifies a particular
`
`location on the advertising storage medium 44, such as the particular track
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`and sector where an advertisement is located,” and consumer computer 12
`
`retrieves the advertisement from advertising storage medium 44. Id.
`
`
`
`2. Merriman
`
`Merriman describes a method and system for “targeting the delivery
`
`of advertisements over a network such as the Internet.” Ex. 1013, Abstract.
`
`Figure 1 of Merriman is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts affiliate web site 12, advertisement (“ad”) server web site
`
`19, and advertiser web site 18. Id. at col. 2, ll. 59–62. A user operates a web
`
`browser to generate request 20 directed to affiliate web site 12. Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 24–28. Affiliate web site 12 sends messages 22 containing the
`
`information available at the particular web site for the requested page to be
`
`displayed by user browser 16, except for one or more advertising objects,
`
`such as banner advertisements. Id. at col. 3, ll. 30–34. Instead of sending
`
`the advertising objects, affiliate web site 12 sends a link to the node running
`
`advertising server process 19, where the link refers to an inline image, such
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`as a banner. Id. at col. 3, ll. 34–41. User browser 16 sends message 23 to
`
`advertising server process 19 to access the object. Id. at col. 3, ll. 41–52.
`
`Upon receiving message 23, advertising server process 19 determines
`
`which advertisement or other object to provide to user browser 16 and
`
`transmits message 24 containing the object. Id. at col. 3, ll. 52–57. The
`
`advertisement object then is displayed “as a composite of the received
`
`affiliate’s web page plus the object transmitted back by the advertising web
`
`server.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 59–63. “As part of the ‘click through’ process,
`
`when the user clicks on the banner or other advertising object displayed by
`
`the user’s browser 16, the user’s browser again transmits a message [23] to
`
`the ad server.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 64–67. Advertising server process 19 notes
`
`the address of the computer that generated message 23 and transmits back
`
`the URL of the advertiser’s web page so that user browser 16 can generate
`
`message 26 to contact advertiser web site 18. Id. at col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 5.
`
`
`
`3. HTTP1.0
`
`HTTP1.0 is a working document of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`(HTTP) Working Group. Ex. 1008, 1. The document describes
`
`specifications for the protocol referred to as “HTTP/1.0,” and describes a
`
`cache as a “program’s local store of response messages and the subsystem
`
`that controls its message storage, retrieval, and deletion,” which “stores
`
`cachable responses in order to reduce the response time and network
`
`bandwidth consumption on future, equivalent requests.” Id. at 1, 5.
`
`HTTP1.0 states that “[a]ny client or server may include a cache.” Id. at 5.
`
`HTTP1.0 further discloses the use of a “Pragma general-header field.”
`
`Id. at 35. “All pragma directives specify optional behavior from the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`viewpoint of the protocol; however, some systems may require that behavior
`
`be consistent with the directives.” Id. One pragma directive is a “no-cache”
`
`directive, which is described as follows:
`
`When the “no-cache” directive is present in a request message,
`an application should forward the request toward the origin
`server even if it has a cached copy of what is being requested.
`This allows a client to insist upon receiving an authoritative
`response to its request. It also allows a client to refresh a
`cached copy which is known to be corrupted or stale.
`
`Id. at 35–36.
`
`
`
`4. Whether the Cited References Teach All Limitations of
`the Challenged Claims
`
`a. Claim 1
`
`i. Petitioner’s Contentions
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 would have been obvious over Angles,
`
`Merriman, and HTTP1.0, relying on Angles for the majority of the
`
`limitations in the claim. Pet. 16–31. Petitioner argues that Angles teaches
`
`serving a “first portion of information” (i.e., web page) to consumer
`
`computer 12 that includes a reference to a “second portion of information”
`
`(i.e., banner advertisement), sending a non-blockable “first request signal”
`
`(i.e., a CGI request) from consumer computer 12 to advertisement provider
`
`computer 18, and returning a “location signal” (i.e., advertisement
`
`command) that allows consumer computer 12 to retrieve the advertisement
`
`from advertising storage medium 44. Id. at 16–18, 23–28.
`
`Although Angles retrieves the advertisement from local storage,
`
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious instead to have the
`
`location signal point to an external storage device, such as another server.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`Id. at 18–21, 26–30. Specifically, Petitioner contends that it would have
`
`been obvious to “replace [Angles’s] advertising command identifying a
`
`location of an advertisement on local storage with Merriman’s HTTP
`
`redirect message identifying a location of an advertisement on networked
`
`storage,” such that consumer computer 12 would send a “second request
`
`signal” to a second advertisement provider computer to retrieve the
`
`advertisement. Id. at 18–21. Petitioner also argues that, before doing so,
`
`“a determination must be made regarding whether the advertisement has
`
`already been cached locally on the consumer computer,” and it would have
`
`been obvious to use a “standard cache function” based on HTTP1.0. Id. at
`
`21–23, 28–30. Thus, Petitioner’s obviousness theory is premised on Angles
`
`teaching most of the limitations of claim 1, and a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art having reason to modify Angles’s system to (1) use an HTTP redirect
`
`message pointing to an external device, as taught by Merriman, instead of
`
`Angles’s advertisement command pointing to local storage, and
`
`(2) determining if the advertisement is stored locally in a cache, as taught by
`
`HTTP1.0, prior to sending a request to the external device to retrieve the
`
`advertisement.7
`
`
`7 We note that Petitioner incorrectly recites the last limitation of claim 1 as
`“serving said second portion of information to the terminal,” rather than “if
`said second portion of information is already stored on the terminal,
`displaying said second portion of information on the terminal.” See Pet.
`30–31. Petitioner explains elsewhere in its Petition, however, how the
`advertisement would be displayed in the modified Angles system. See id. at
`18, 21–23 (arguing that “if there is a cached local copy of the customized
`advertisement in the consumer computer, . . . the cached customized
`advertisement is served and displayed on the consumer’s computer”).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`
`We focus on the following limitation of claim 1 in particular, which
`
`we refer to generally as “the non-blockable first request limitation,” because
`
`in this case it is dispositive:
`
`sending a first request signal from the terminal to the
`primary server requesting a location address for said second
`portion of information from which said second portion of
`information can be served to the terminal, wherein said first
`request signal cannot be blocked from reaching said primary
`server by either the terminal or any intermediary device located
`topologically between the terminal and the primary server as a
`result of previous caching or storing of said first portion of
`information or said second portion of information by the
`terminal or said intermediary device.
`
`Petitioner argues that Angles teaches the non-blockable first request
`
`limitation by describing the use of an advertisement request. Pet. 17–18
`
`(“The advertisement request in Angles is an unblockable signal.”), 24–27.
`
`In particular, Petitioner argues that Angles’s consumer computer 12 sends a
`
`request to invoke content provider CGI script 64 (event E in Figure 4) to
`
`advertisement provider computer 18, which executes the script, selects an
`
`advertisement appropriate for the requesting user, and returns to consumer
`
`computer 12 an advertisement command (event F in Figure 4) that identifies
`
`a particular location on advertising storage medium 44 where the
`
`advertisement may be retrieved. Id. As support for its position that the use
`
`of a CGI request in Angles prevents blocking as a result of previous caching
`
`or storing, Petitioner cites the following disclosures in Angles:
`
`the
`request 26 directs
`[T]he embedded advertisement
`advertisement provider computer 18 to execute a content
`provider script (not shown). . . .
`
`. . . The advertisement request 26 references a content provider
`CGI script 64 which exists on the advertisement provider
`computer 18.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`Ex. 1012, col. 7, l. 65–col. 8, l. 1, col. 13, ll. 2–4; see Pet. 26. According to
`
`Petitioner, the CGI request in Angles is “one of the exact same types of
`
`request that is described in the ’698 patent.” Pet. 17. Petitioner also relies
`
`on the following testimony from its declarant, Mr. Kent:
`
`[A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized
`that a server (such as the advertisement provider computer in
`Angles) executes a requested CGI script to dynamically
`generate content (e.g., the redirecting advertisement command
`identifying a customized advertisement) and the resulting
`content would not be cached by the consumer computer or by
`the intermediate proxy.
`
`Because the consumer computer or the proxy would not
`maintain copies of the requested dynamic content (e.g., the
`redirecting advertisement command), a [person of ordinary skill
`in the art] would also have recognized that referencing a CGI
`script in the advertising request prevents the advertising
`request—i.e., from being “cache-blocked” from reaching the
`advertisement provider computer 18.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–59.8
`
`
`
`ii. Petitioner Has Not Shown That the Cited References Teach
`the Non-Blockable First Request Limitation
`
`For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cited references teach
`
`the non-blockable first request limitation of claim 1. We begin by noting
`
`that Angles does not state expressly that the advertisement request to execute
`
`the CGI script, which is sent by the consumer computer, cannot be
`
`“blocked” from reaching the advertisement provider computer due to
`
`
`8 Some of Petitioner’s citations to Mr. Kent’s declaration appear to be
`incorrect. See, e.g., Pet. 17–18, 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–61).
`Nevertheless, we are able to identify the relevant portions, as stated herein.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00662
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`previous caching or storing of the electronic page or advertisement. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1012, col. 13, ll. 2–4. Thus, the dispositive issue is whether a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art reading the disclosure of Angles would
`
`have understood the advertisement request to be non-blockable. See
`
`Tr. 36:1–9 (Petitioner acknowledging that its position is not that the
`
`advertisement request “must” operate in such a way as to be non-blockable,
`
`but rather that “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading [Angles] would
`
`have understood it to be that way”). We are not persuaded that an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan would have understood Angles’s advertisement request to be
`
`non-blockable.
`
`Angles merely discloses that advertisement request 26, which is sent
`
`to the consumer computer with the electronic page, references a “CGI
`
`script.” Ex. 1012, col. 12, l. 54–col. 13, l. 4. As both parties acknowledge,
`
`not all requests to execute a CGI script are non-blockable due to previous
`
`caching. See PO Resp. 26–27; Tr. 28:5–10, 44:23–45:18. Whether such a
`
`request is non-blockable depends on the particular syntax used for the
`
`request. See PO Resp. 26–27; Tr. 45:3–13. Patent Owner’s declarant, Kevin
`
`C. Almeroth, Ph.D., explains that applications use certain heuristics to
`
`designate whether a response will be cacheable or not, one of which is the
`
`set of strings “cgi-bin” and “?”. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 87–88 (citing Ex. 1008, 7).
`
`This is consistent with the ’698 patent, which discloses that including
`
`variable components in the request (e.g., a random number) or the strings
`
`“cgi-bin” and “?” will prevent the request from being blocked due to
`
`caching. See Ex. 1001, col. 18, l. 30–col. 19, l. 6, col. 19, ll. 49–53 (“the use
`
`of ‘cgi-bin’ and ‘?’ strings in the signal sent by

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.

throbber

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.

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