Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 16
`
`Entered: February 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUICA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01644
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Unified Patents Inc. (hereafter “Unified” filed a Petition (“Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,983 B1 (“the ’983 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2. The
`Petition identified Plano Encryption Technologies, LLC as the owner of
`the ’983 patent according to the assignment records of the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office. Pet. 1. On January 18, 2017, we were
`informed subsequently by Mr. Bradley D. Liddle, of Plano Encryption
`Technologies, that there had been a later assignment of the ’983 patent of all
`rights from Plano Encryption Technologies to Cuica, LLC (“Cuica”), and
`that the associated assignment was recorded on January 17, 2017. See
`Paper 14; Ex. 3001, 30021. We ordered Cuica to file a Mandatory Notice
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.08(a)(2) and § 42.08(b). Paper 15. At this time,
`Cuica has not filed a Preliminary Response or a Mandatory Notice.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we conclude
`that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Unified would prevail in challenging claims 1–4,
`6, 7, 9, and 10 of the ’983 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby decline to institute an inter partes
`review of the ’983 patent.
`
`                                                            
`1 The assignment shown in Ex. 3002 has been assigned Assignment Number
`504181762, recorded January 17, 2017, Reel 040995, Frame 0179.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A.
`Related Matters
`Unified does not identify any pending matters related to the ’983
`patent. Pet. 1.
`
`The ’983 Patent
`B.
`The ’983 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Controlling Access
`to Data Maintained in a Repository,” issued October 15, 2002, from U.S.
`Patent Application No. 09/406,196, filed on September 30, 1999. Ex. 1001,
`at [54], [45], [21], [22]. The ’983 patent expired on October 15, 2014 due to
`non-payment of maintenance fees under 37 C.F.R. § 1.362. See Ex. 1010,
`217; Pet 13.
`The ’983 patent is directed to controlling access, assemblage, and
`presentation of data maintained in a computer system repository. Ex. 1001,
`3:22–24. The invention is intended to address deficiencies in prior methods
`of controlling content dissemination by using the data repository to
`dynamically construct responses. Id. at 3:29–30. This is done by the use of
`a “forresta”2 contained in a user’s request. Id. at 3:33–35. Figure 2,
`reproduced below, shows the configuration of the invention of the ’983
`patent.
`
`                                                            
`2 The term “forresta” appears to be a term coined by the inventor of the ’983
`patent. The meaning of this term is discussed in more detail in our claim
`construction, infra Section III.A.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a block diagram of the request/response relationships for
`a client (user) with storage (content repository). Ex. 1001, 3:56–57.
`
`Client 100 may make one or more requests 200 of server 102 to have data
`returned in a response. Ex. 1001, 5:16–21. A request 200 that does not
`specify data access control process (“DAC”) 106 as the recipient is referred
`to in the ’983 patent as a “flat request,” and it always receives external data
`109 as the content of response 201 from repository server 102. Id. at 5:19–
`21, 5:66–6:5. A request 200 that is directed to DAC 106 is referred to in
`the ’983 patent as a “forresting type request,” which must be executed before
`any governed content 110 can be delivered in “privileged response 203.” Id.
`at 5:17–19, 6:5–7–. DAC 106 is subdivided into three sub-processes:
`access module 300, session module 301, and form module 302. Id. at 6:60–
`64. The modules of DAC 106 are depicted in Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a block diagram of the major components of DAC 106,
`including the input and output of a request and response. Ex. 1001, 3:61–64.
`
`Access module 300 is the recipient of a forresting type request and contains
`methods implementing interfacing to communications and authentication
`processes. Ex. 1001, 6:63–7:3. Session module 301 maintains and
`processes information about each client 100. Id. at 7:3–4. Form module 302
`constructs privileged response 203 to client 100 based on values of forresta
`arguments 206 and destination arguments 207. Id. at 7:12–14.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`Figure 10, which depicts session node 1000, is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 10 illustrates a block diagram of the data structures of session
`node 1000. Ex. 1001, 3:61–64.
`
`As forresting type requests 204 are delivered to access module 300, each is
`reformatted by access module 300 into session node 1000. Ex. 1001, 14:36–
`39. Session node 1000 is forwarded as the input argument to a process call
`to session module 301. Id. at 14:40–42. Session nodes 1000 are maintained
`as a set in a data structure known as session list 1001. Id. at 14:45–46.
`When forresting type request 204 is received, a specific session node is
`identified by matching forresta argument value 206 with the contents of
`forresta field 1003 contained within session node 1000. Id. at 18:1–5. With
`the receipt of a valid session node 1000, form module 302 begins
`assemblage of privileged response 203. Id. at 18:28–30. If the required
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`permission is satisfied by privilege value 1005, form module 302 will
`include corresponding fragments and process them into a privileged
`response. Id. at 19:3–9, 19:41–48. Governed objects within a fragment may
`be modified with substitution phrases when form module 302 is building the
`privileged response. See id. at 11:3–6.
`C.
`Illustrative Claims
` Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 9 are independent claims.
`Claims 2–4, 6, and 7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
`claim 10 depends from claim 9. Claims 1 and 9 are reproduced below:
`1. In a computer system having means for allowing access to a
`repository of data by a plurality of clients over at least one
`communications link connected to said computer system, data
`access control means comprising:
`
`means for interpreting the format of a data transmission
`occurring between said computer system and each of said clients
`wherein the transmission itself contains and is identified by one
`or more forresta identities, each of said forresta identities may be
`acted upon independently; and each of which is unique and
`unrelated to any means used to identify the parties receiving or
`sending such transmission;
`
`means for creating said forresta identity as an n-byte
`character sequence having no conflicting meaning within the
`coding constructs of a transmission;
`
`means for creating a unique session node managed by the
`data access control method, wherein said session node exists to
`identify and validate recognized forresta identities contained
`within each such transmission; and
`
`means for creating a construction sequence for each new
`transmission, said sequence identifying the components and
`forresta identities used to form the transmission and where said
`sequence results from interpreting forresta identities.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`9. In a computer system allowing access to a repository of data
`wherein access of the repository by a plurality of clients is
`permitted over a network communications link that may be
`connected to a server computer that is the custodian of the data
`repository, comprising in combination:
`
`a source of data that comprises the content of the
`repository, said data being eligible to be returned to a client as a
`result of an access request made by the client;
`
`means for organizing data into groups of one or more
`elements through a user interface based on criteria established
`by the designer of the repository;
`
`means for using said groups individually or in
`combination in the formation of a response to a client based on
`the access made by the client;
`
`means for controlling an access that may be executed by
`a client, said access being included as a component of group
`content;
`
`means for the selective assignment of a permission value
`to said group through a user interface, said permission value
`specifying the access and combination scope of the group to
`which it is assigned;
`
`means for determining when the intent of an access is to
`retrieve data held by the repository;
`
`means for determining when an access or sequence of
`accesses is invalid for the repository;
`
`means for control of accesses that may be executed by a
`client, said accesses being components of a named data input
`stream, comprising means for examining the content of a
`fragment file to identify embedded constructs that act as an
`access of data held by the repository when said constructs are
`executed by a client; means for identifying the data that is the
`object of the access; display means by which the content of
`fragment files is presented to the repository designer with said
`constructs displayed uniquely from other content; means for
`permitting the retention, deletion or alteration of said constructs
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`by the repository designer through a user interface; and means
`for substituting said constructs with a placeholder value;
`
`means for parsing and substituting constructs that are
`components of fragment files; further including means for
`accessing a substitution table containing a set of substitution
`records, said substitution records including one each of a parse
`phrase, a substitution index and a substitution phrase;
`
`means for examining the content of a fragment file, said
`parse phrases are used in comparison with the content of the
`fragment file to identify constructs;
`
`means wherein said substitution index is paired with the
`object of the construct, said object being a reference to tangible
`data held by the repository and contained within the syntax of
`the construct, said pairing used as the placeholder value for the
`syntax of said construct; and
`
`means wherein within said means of identifying
`placeholders said substitution phrase is used as a replacement
`for a substitution index and object pair.
`Ex. 1001, 20:39–63, 22:43–23:35.
`
`
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`D.
`Unified relies upon the following prior art references:
`Patent
`Identifier
`Filing Date
`Reference
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,451
`He
`June 28, 1996
`U.S. Patent No. 5,823,212
`Cragun
`April 19, 1996
`Shannon U.S. Patent No. 6,233,618 B1 March 31, 1998
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1003
`1004
`1006
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`Unified challenges claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the ’983 patent based
`on the alleged grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below.
`Pet. 19, 36.
`Reference(s)
`Shannon and He
`Shannon, He, and Cragun
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1
`2–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Claim Interpretation
`A.
`The ’983 patent has expired. See Ex. 1010, 217. Our review of the
`“claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”
`In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Because the expired
`claims of a patent are not subject to amendment, we apply the principles set
`forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)), that “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary
`and customary meaning,’” as would be understood by a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. A claim term,
`however, “will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his
`own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
`term in either the specification or prosecution history.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If an inventor acts
`as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed.
`Cir. 1998).
`Unified proposes claim constructions for several terms of the claims at
`issue. We address these terms below.
`“forresta”
`Unified contends that the term “forresta” has no ordinary meaning.
`Pet. 14. Unified states that “[a]fter a diligent search,” it was unable to find
`any use of the term in common language. Id. Unified refers to the
`Specification’s description of “forresta” as passive information included
`within a user’s request as the basis of its proposed construction of the term
`to mean “any passive data which can be used to identify the user’s level of
`access to a repository of data.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:31–34; Ex. 1002
`¶ 21).
`We agree with Unified’s view that the term “forresta” does not have
`ordinary meaning because the Specification indicates that the inventor
`intended to act as a lexicographer for the term based upon the use of
`quotation marks for identification of the term therein, and referring to
`“forresta” as “a set of values herein named” and “herein labeled.” Ex. 1001,
`Abstract, 3:31–33. The Specification states that the invention “overcomes
`the deficiencies of prior schemes for controlling content dissemination,” by
`using a “forresta” as “passive information” that is included “within the
`user’s request,” and that by “[u]sing the functionality provided by the
`forresta, each of the client requests and each of the server responses are
`individualized.” Id. at 3:28–34. On this record, we agree that the
`Specification supports Unified’s proposed construction of the term
`“forresta” as “any passive data which can be used to identify the user’s level
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`of access to a repository of data,” and we adopt this construction for
`purposes of this Decision.
`means-plus-function terms
`Independent claims 1 and 9 include several recitations of “means” or
`“means for” limitations. See Ex. 1001, 20:39–63, 22:43–23:35. Unified
`advocates that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies to the “means for allowing
`access” term of claim 1 and “means for organizing data” of claim 9 because
`the claim language does not provide sufficient structure to perform the
`claimed function.3 Pet. 16–18. We agree with Unified on this issue because
`the use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable
`presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 applies, and there is no structure identified in the
`claims. Personalized Media Comm’s, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04
`(Fed. Cir. 1998). Unified identifies the “server computer 102 [that]
`contains . . . data access control (‘DAC’) process 106 of the present
`invention” as the structure for the “means for allowing access” term of
`claim 1, and the “reference tool 500,” depicted in Figure 5, as the structure
`of the “means for organizing data” of claim 9. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:60–67, 7:57–8:5, Figs. 1, 2, 5; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25, 27).
`Unified also asserts that the remaining “means for” limitations of
`claim 1, and those of dependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7, only “further define
`the claimed ‘data access control means’ of claim 1” (i.e., the recited “means
`for allowing access”), and the corresponding structure is therefore also
`
`                                                            
`3 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Because the ’983 patent has a filing date before September 16,
`2012 (the effective date of AIA § 4(c)), we will henceforth refer to the
`pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`server computer 102 containing DAC process 106. Id. at 18. Similarly,
`Unified advocates that for other means-plus-function terms of claims 9 and
`10, the corresponding structure is the “server computer 102 [that]
`contains . . . data access control (‘DAC’) process 106.” Id. at 19.
`When construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 ¶ 6, we first must consider the claimed function, and then we look to
`the specification for the corresponding structure that actually performs the
`claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude
`Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The corresponding
`structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be more than simply a
`general purpose computer or microprocessor to avoid pure functional
`claiming. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d
`1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That is, the specification must disclose
`“enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112,
`¶ 6.” Finisar Corp. v. The DirectTV Group, 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
`2008). The disclosed algorithm may be expressed in any understandable
`terms, e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart. Id. Simply
`disclosing software, however, “without providing some detail about the
`means to accomplish the function[,] is not enough.” Id. at 1340–41.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), a Petition is required to provide an
`identification of the portions of the specification that describe the structure,
`material, or acts corresponding to the claimed functions of the means-plus-
`function limitations that are necessary to be construed. This information
`assists us in assessing the challenges and prior art presented in a Petition.
`Here, server computer 102 that runs DAC process 106 is not identified as a
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`special purpose computer, and therefore identification of algorithms or other
`terms disclosed in the Specification that describe the function of the
`structure is required. Unified states that for the majority of the means-plus-
`function limitations, the corresponding structure that performs the claimed
`functions is server computer 102 performing DAC process 106. However,
`as discussed further below, there are also specific algorithms and/or
`additional means included in the Specification of the ’983 patent that
`accomplish the specific functions of the means-plus-function limitations of
`the claims. The general term “DAC process,” as discussed supra
`Section II.B, includes three sub-processes—access module 300, session
`module 301, and form module 302—each of which is discussed at some
`length in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 3–11, cols. 5–20. In fact,
`Unified fails to address the majority of the means-plus-function limitations
`by identifying associated portions of the Specification that disclose the
`algorithms or means to accomplish specific DAC processes corresponding to
`those limitations of the claim.4
`Not every limitation of a challenged claim requires explicit or full
`construction, but for means-plus-function limitations in which the
`corresponding structure is a general purpose computer, 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(3) requires some identification of the algorithms disclosed for
`performing the claimed function. For instance, as discussed in greater detail
`
`                                                            
`4 Here, we are not addressing whether there is, in fact, sufficient support in
`the Specification to support all the mean-plus-function limitations of the
`claims at issue. Rather, the issue under discussion is the sufficiency of the
`Petition’s identification of portions of the Specification pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`infra Section III.B.4, in order to allow us to assess the obviousness
`challenges, we consider the claim 1 limitation of “means for creating said
`forresta identity as an n-byte character sequence,” which is a mean-plus-
`function limitation, having the function of creating the forresta identity as an
`n-byte character sequence, and with the corresponding structure of general
`purpose server computer 102, running the only disclosed algorithm for the
`function, i.e., fcode process 900. See infra Section III.B.4. For claim 9, we
`consider the limitation “means for determining when an access or sequence
`of accesses is invalid for the repository,” which is a mean-plus-function
`limitation, having the function of determining when access is invalid for the
`repository of data, with the corresponding structure being a general purpose
`server computer 102, running the only disclosed algorithm for the function,
`i.e., determining that no session node is found in a search, determining that
`the destination value fails to match any sorted order field entry, and
`comparing a forresta value to determine a failure to match an expected
`forresta field. See infra Section III.B.4. As discussed in greater detail
`below, the prior art teachings identified in the Petition are deficient as to
`these limitations, and, thus, the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood that Unified would succeed in demonstrating the obviousness of
`the claims at issue. We, therefore, need not further address the sufficiency
`of the Petition’s § 112 ¶ 6 analysis.
`Remaining Claim Terms or Phrases
`Unified also proposes a construction for the claim term “fragments.”
`Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:20–26). It is not necessary to construe this
`term, or other terms of the claims, however, to resolve the issues discussed
`below. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those claim terms or phrases that
`are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy).
`
`B.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Shannon and He and of
`Claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 Over Shannon, He, and Cragun
`
`Unified contends that independent claim 1 of the ’983 patent would
`have been obvious over the combination of Shannon and He. Pet. 19–35.
`Unified also alleges that claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Shannon, He, and Cragun. Id. at 36–60.
`To support its contentions, Unified provides explanations as to how the
`combination of the prior art purportedly teaches each claim limitation. Id. at
`19–60. Unified also relies upon the Declaration of Herbert Cohen (“Cohen
`Declaration”) (Ex. 1002) to support its contentions. On this record, we are
`not persuaded that Unified has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its obviousness challenges.
`We begin our discussion with a brief summary of Shannon, He, and
`Cragun, and then address Unified’s challenges to the claims.
`1. Shannon (Ex. 1006)
`Shannon generally discloses access control to limit access to
`information content, such as that found on the Internet. Ex. 1006, Abstract,
`3:46–50. Shannon discloses providing “access control not based only upon
`content, but rather, based primarily upon the identity of the computers or
`users making the requests.” Id., Abstract. Access control is determined “by
`comparing client source information against a database of Uniform Resource
`Locators (URLs), IP addresses, or other resource identification data
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`specifying the data requested by the client.” Id. Shannon uses a network
`device 100 that acts as a “gateway,” “configured . . . to monitor the data
`communications that pass between clients connected to the LAN 40 and
`servers connected to the WAN 45,” as depicted in Figure 1 below. Id. at
`6:5–9, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 32.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an example of the networked computer environment of
`Shannon. Ex. 1006, 4:62–63 (annotated by Unified).
`
`Shannon uses systems that control user access to information by identifying
`the users seeking the information. Ex. 1006, 7:26–40. The system then
`determines whether the identified user may view the information, and to
`what extent the user may access, download, or manipulate the information.
`Id. at 6:48–60.
`
`2. He (Ex. 1003)
`He is directed to connecting a network security server to a network “to
`control access to the network elements and protect network resources and
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`information.” Ex. 1003, Abstract. The network is depicted in Figure 2,
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of the network that includes network
`security server 208. Ex. 1003, 3:23–25.
`
`He discloses the use of network security server 208 that includes “network
`authentication 202, user credential control 204 and network element access
`control 206.” Ex. 1003, 11:34–40. He also discloses the use of a general
`ticket that is provided to each user at login to facilitate future access
`requests. Id. at 2:36–37. The “general ticket is used by the network security
`server to authenticate access requests without having to verify user
`credentials for each access request.” Id. at 2:39–42.
`3. Cragun (Ex. 1004)
`Cragun discloses a censoring browser used for internet viewing.
`Ex. 1004, Abstract. The system of Cragun allows for tailoring objectionable
`content, allowing users to select censoring parameters, including “words and
`word fragments, user selected categories, and user selected super
`categories.” Id. at 2:35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50. Cragun discloses that, prior to
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`any text being displayed, the system “searches for and marks any words and
`words containing any word fragments on a user-defined unwanted-word list
`stored in a user profile.” Ex. 1004, 3:55–58. Any words on the user
`censoring list “are removed and replaced by user selected substitutes for
`display of the processed text in accordance with user selected censoring
`rules stored in a user profile.” Id. at 3:59–61.
`4.
`Analysis
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claims 2–
`4, 6, and 7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claim 10 depends
`from claim 9. We first address independent claim 1, and the claims which
`depend therefrom, and then address independent claim 9, and claim 10
`which depends therefrom.
`a. Claims 1–4, 6, and 7
`Unified alleges that the combination of Shannon and He teaches all
`the limitations of independent claim 1. See Pet. 19–35. There are several
`mean-plus-function elements that comprise the “access control means” of
`claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in part, “means for creating said forresta identity as
`an n-byte character sequence having no conflicting meaning within the
`coding constructs of a transmission.” Ex. 1001, 20:51–54. The ’983 patent
`describes this creation of the n-byte sequence as follows:
`All forresta values, except the anonymous user value, are
`generated utilizing a time and memory based routine that uses
`multiple random values. In this preferred embodiment of the
`present invention, the resulting format of a forresta value is an
`“n”-byte character sequence that has no conflicting meaning
`within the coding constructs of a response 201. To create a
`forresta value sequence requires use of the following algorithm.
`This algorithm is defined by the current preferred embodiment of
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`the present invention and is referred to herein as the “fcode
`process” 900 (Fig. 9).
`Ex. 1001, 12:13–23 (emphasis added). Figure 9, referenced above, is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts a block diagram illustrating the required manipulation of
`values in order to form a forresta value. Ex. 1001, 4:22–23.
`
`The ’983 patent contains additional, detailed descriptions of the algorithm
`for fcode process 900, i.e., the programming used to accomplish the claimed
`function of creating the n-byte character sequence. Ex. 1001, 12:25–13:42.
`The ’983 patent does not include discussion of any other algorithm or
`corresponding structure for accomplishing this function of the claim.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`
`Unified relies upon the following portion of Shannon as teaching a
`“means for creating said forresta identity as an n-byte character sequence”:
`In the example shown in Table 1, client computer numbers
`are used. In a preferred embodiment, the computer numbers used
`by the group/source database 203 are preferably machine address
`(i.e., Internet Protocol (“IP”) or Media Access Control (“MAC”)
`addresses, as will be described below) to identify sources, or
`sources may be broken down even further to the username level,
`such that no matter which client computer a specific user logs in
`at, that user will always be associated with his or her respective
`group. In such a case, groups would have sources containing
`usernames,
`instead of hostnames, or sources may be
`username/hostname pairs.
` As will be explained,
`the
`group/source database 203 will be used to determine who is
`requesting the information over the network, such as web page
`data for example, and what their level of access is.
`Ex. 1006, 7:27–41; see Pet. 32.5 Unified appears to rely upon Shannon’s
`client computer number or machine addresses such as Internet Protocol
`(“IP”), Media Access Control (“MAC”) addresses, and/or usernames as
`teaching the claimed n-byte character sequence. Pet. 32. The claim
`limitation, however, requires the creation of a forresta identity as an n-byte
`character sequence, and Shannon merely discloses that there are different
`identifiers of a computer or of a user of a computer that may be associated
`with different groups and have different assigned levels of access. See
`Ex. 1006, 7:11–26. Even assuming the identifiers in Shannon are “an n-byte
`character sequence,” as recited by the claim, Shannon still fails to teach any
`“creating” because the computer numbers taught by Shannon—e.g., IP
`                                                            
`5 In the Petition, Unified cites to Exhibit 1006 at 7:11–26 (Pet. 32), but the
`text quoted by Unified, and reproduced above, is at 7:27–41. The erroneous
`citation appears to be inadvertent error, and we rely on the textual portion of
`Shannon quoted in the Petition.
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01644
`Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`address or MAC address—already exist and, therefore, are not “creat[ed]”
`by Shannon’s group/source database 203. Moreover, even assuming that
`Shannon teaches “creating” computer numbers, we still would not be
`persuaded that Shannon teaches the recited “means for creating said forresta
`identity” because Unified does not identify, and we cannot find, any
`teaching in Shannon of the use of the algorithm disclosed in the ’983 patent
`“for creating a forresta identity,” i.e., fcode process 900. Unified also does
`not argue that Shannon’s process is equivalent to fcode process 900, or that
`He teaches this limitation.
`We are, therefore, not persuaded that the asserted combination of
`Shannon and He teaches or suggests the limitation of “means for creating
`said forresta identity as an n-byte character sequence” of the “access control
`means” of claim 1. Because claims 2–4, 6, and 7 depend from independent
`claim 1, and because Unified cites no additional evidence in discussing these
`claims that would remedy the deficiency of the prior art discussed above
`with respect to cl