Paper No. __
`Filed: August 31, 2016
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`Telephone: 650-999-0899
`
`
`
` 
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By:
`P. Andrew Riley
`James D. Stein
`Finnegan, Henderson,
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001–4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4266
`Facsimile: 202-408-440
`Email: Plano983IPR@finnegan.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PLANO ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01644
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING ACCESS
`TO DATA MAINTAINED IN A REPOSITORY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................. 1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................................ 1
`B. Related Matters ................................................................................................. 1
`C. Counsel ............................................................................................................. 1
`D. Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal .................................. 1
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................................. 2
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 2
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ....................................................... 2
`B. Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................................... 3
`IV. Technology Background .................................................................................. 3
`V. Overview of ’983 patent ...................................................................................... 7
`A. Summary of the Alleged Invention .................................................................. 7
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 11
`C. Prosecution History ........................................................................................ 12
`VI. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 14
`A. “Forresta” ........................................................................................................ 14
`B. “Fragment[s]” ................................................................................................. 15
`C. “means for allowing access to a repository of data by a plurality of clients
`over at least one communications link connected to said computer systems”
`[claim 1] ................................................................................................................ 16
`D. Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 Means-Plus-Function Constructions ............................. 17
`E. “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”
`[claim 9] ................................................................................................................ 18
`F. Claims 9 and 10 Means Plus Function Constructions .................................... 19
`VII. Specific Grounds for Petition ......................................................................... 19
`i 
`
` 
`
` 
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 is rendered obvious over Shannon (EX1006) in view of
`He ’451 (EX1003)................................................................................................. 19
`1. Shannon (EX1006) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`2. He ’451 (EX1003) ....................................................................................... 21
`
`3. Motivation to combine He ’451 (EX1003) and Shannon (EX1006) .......... 22
`
`4. Chart for claim 1: Shannon in view of He ’451. See Cohen Decl. (EX1002)
`at ¶ 46) ............................................................................................................... 28
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rendered obvious by Shannon in
`view of He ’451, further view of Cragun ............................................................. 36
`1. Cragun ......................................................................................................... 36
`
`2. Motivation to combine Cragun with He ’451 and Shannon ....................... 36
`
`3. Chart for claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10: Shannon in view of He ’451, further
`in view of Cragun (see Cohen Decl. (EX1002) at ¶ 57) ................................... 40
`
`VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`ii 
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
` 
`
`

`
`IPR2016—01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`EX1001 (’983 patent) U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,983 B1 (‘983 patent)
`
`EX1002 (Cohen C1601.) Declaration of Herbert Cohen (Cohen decl.)
`EX1003 (He .451)
`})JIiSJ_ul1’a:.1N;(.)5(f1led on Jun. 28, 1996; published
`
`EX1004 (Craglm)
`EX1005 (Blumenau)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,832,212 (filed on Apr.
`ublished on Nov 3 1998
`C1 a un
`'
`3
`‘
`O.
`U.S_ Pat. No. 7,756,986 B2 to Blumenau (Blumenau)
`
`.
`
`19, 1996;
`
`.
`
`‘ 3
`
`EX1007 (Gebauer)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,062,489 B1 to Gebauer (Gebauer)
`
`.k
`EX1008 P .
`( “p'er"'“ )
`EX1009 (Ginter)
`
`U.S._ Pat. No. 6,714,931 (filed on Apr. 29, 1998;
`ublished on Mar. 30, 2004 Pa ierniak
`U_S. Pat. No. 5,982,891 to Gitner (Gitner)
`
`EX1010 (File History) U_S. Pat. No. 6,466,983 B1 File History
`
`EXl01 1
`
`EX1012
`
`Unified Patents Inc. ’s Voluntary Interrogatories
`
`Excerpt of HTML 4.0 Specification (1997)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified” or
`
`“Petitioner”) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies
`
`that no other party exercised control or could exercise control over Unified’s
`
`participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any
`
`ensuing trial. In this regard, Unified has submitted voluntary discovery. See
`
`EX1011 (Unified Patents Inc.’s Voluntary Interrogatories).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,983 (“’983 patent” (EX1001)) is owned by Plano
`
`Encryption Technologies, LLC (“Plano” or “Patent Owner”) according to the
`
`assignment records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`C. Counsel
`
`P. Andrew Riley will act as lead counsel; Jonathan Stroud and James Stein
`
`will act as backup counsel.
`
`D. Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service, and request patent owners do the
`
`same. Petitioner
`
`can be
`
`served
`
`at Plano983IPR@finnegan.com
`
`and
`
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com. P. Andrew Riley and James D. Stein can be reached
`
`at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., 901 New York
`
` 
` 
`
`1 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001–4413, and can be reached by telephone at
`
`202-408-4266 or fax at 202-408-4400. Jonathan Stroud can be reached at Unified
`
`Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10, Washington, D.C., 20009, at
`
`650-999-0455.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the ’983 Patent.
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below1:
`
` U.S. No. 6,088,451 (filed on Jun. 28, 1996; published on Jul. 11, 2000) (“He
`
`’451”) (EX1003)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`                                                            
`1 The ’983 patent issued from a patent application filed prior to enactment of the
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
`
` 
` 
`
`2 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
` U.S. No. 5,832,212 (filed on Apr. 19, 1996; published on Nov. 3, 1998)
`
`(“Cragun” or (EX1004)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
` U.S. No. 6,233,618 (filed on Mar. 31, 1998; published on May 15, 2001)
`
`(“Shannon”) (EX1006)), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`This Petition, supported by the expert declaration of Herbert Cohen, requests
`
`cancellation of challenged claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`Well before the application for the ’983 patent, the widespread use and
`
`sharing of electronic data storage devices led to a desire for better security and
`
`control over access to information. He ’451 (EX1003) at 1:7–9, 1:30–37; Shannon
`
`(EX1006) at 1:44-48, 3:46-50. Prior art developers created software and hardware
`
`systems to regulate who gets to view and access what information on a network.
`
`He ’451(EX1003) at Abstract; Shannon (EX1006) at 3:35–58; see generally U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,756,986 B2 to Blumenau (EX1005) at Abstract; U.S. Pat. No. 7,062,489
`
`B1 to Gebauer (EX1007) at Abstract; U.S. Pat. No. 5,982,891 to Ginter (EX1009)
`
`at Abstract.
`
` 
` 
`
`3 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`To protect information and regulate access, these prior systems and methods
`
`generally had three steps: (1) identifying a user, (2) limiting access, and (3)
`
`disseminating data. He ’451 (EX1003) at 8:35–9:61; Shannon (EX1006) at Fig. 2;
`
`Blumenau (EX1005) at Abstract; Gebauer (EX1007) at Abstract; Ginter (EX1009)
`
`at Abstract.
`
`Systems that control user access to information must identify the users
`
`seeking the information. The system can then determine whether the user may
`
`view the information, and to what extent the user may access, download, or
`
`manipulate the information. See Shannon (EX1006) at 6:48–60. A school
`
`administrator, for example, might want to prevent the frivolous access of certain
`
`websites during school hours. Id. Websites which direct students to on-line games
`
`could distract from the learning process. Id.The same administer, however, may
`
`not wish to regulate a chess club’s access to those same sites, depending on the
`
`time of day. Id.
`
`In this example from Shannon, the system would be required to identify the
`
`student (EX1006 at 7:26–40), the requested data (see id. at 8:24–67), the location
`
`from where the request was made (see id. at 7:26–40), and the time and date the
`
`request was made (id. at 6:48-60; 7:57–12; Table 2). The system would then
`
`compare these parameters with acceptable access parameters. Id. at 6:28-47, 8:24-
`
`67; Papierniak (EX1008) at 10:10–63; FIG. 7.
`
` 
` 
`
`4 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Papierniak (EX1008) at FIG. 7
`
`
`
`This second step would regulate whether the user, a student in the proposed
`
`example, could access the desired site, and to what extent access should be
`
`granted. Shannon (EX1006) at 6:48–60, 7:5712, Table 2. Though the student may
`
`be allowed access to a chess website, the system would deny access to the pay-to-
`
`play section of the same website. Id. Alternatively, an administrator may wish his
`
`students to have access to certain educational websites, but may also wish to limit
`
`the extent to which a student can access certain parts of the sites. Id.
`
` 
` 
`
`5 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`In another example, a company may wish for its employees to be able to
`
`access certain corporate records while also wanting to restrict which employees
`
`can access what records. See He ’451 (EX1003) at 4:54–5:3. A human resources
`
`employee, for example, may need access to all employee records, but an IT
`
`employee should probably not have the same level of access. Some systems would
`
`then issue a “ticket” or code for each session (or attempt to access the information),
`
`which sets the limits of access for that session. See He ’451 (EX1003) at 27:44–50.
`
`Finally, after determining the extent to which the identified user can access
`
`the requested information, the system would provide the appropriate access. In
`
`doing so, the system should provide no more and no less information than that
`
`authorized for the particular user. Whether restricted information—information the
`
`user does not have access to—is redacted, replaced, or removed is up to the
`
`system’s designer. Cragun (EX1004) at 7:65–8:15, FIG. 7.
`
` 
` 
`
`Cragun (EX1004) at FIG. 7.
`
`6 
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Determining whether a person should have access to information requires a
`
`certain level of cognition. Systems, at the time of ’983 patent’s filing, would
`
`primarily use key words or categorization to determine the type of information
`
`being requested. See EX1006 at 7:57-12, Table 2. The “information type” could be
`
`compared to the user’s access rights and the restricted information could thus be
`
`blocked. Id.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF ’983 PATENT
`
`A. Summary of the Alleged Invention
`
`The ’983 patent describes a number of ways the prior art is used to protect
`
`data and how some of these methods are flawed. The background focuses primarily
`
`on the well-known techniques it calls the “cookie approach” (’983 patent at 1:65),
`
`the “re-direction method” (id. at 2:19) and “data censure” (id. at 2:29). The patent
`
`treats these data access methods as similar but mutually exclusive solutions. Id. at
`
`2:51–53. It describes the singular problem with the prior art as the “attribute that
`
`regulated content is assembled into a fixed form prior to its availability.” Id.
`
`Specifically, the patent claims the prior methods required “duplication of many
`
`elements used to implement the content since no mechanism exist[ed] to
`
`dynamically replace only the sensitive portion at the time of the request.” Id. at
`
`2:56-58.
`
` 
` 
`
`7 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Despite this characterization of the prior art, the ’983 patent does not
`
`primarily address this alleged deficiency. Instead, the ’983 patent addresses a
`
`method to identify the user, create a unique session for said user, and to regulate
`
`the extent of the data shared in each session. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶¶ 12-13.
`
`The ’983 patent relies on the fractured packet nature of internet protocols to
`
`accomplish this last part. The method simply blocks and replaces the restricted
`
`packets based on the user’s access. EX1001 at 19:3–9; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶
`
`13.
`
`The ’983 patent specification devotes the remaining portion of the detailed
`
`description of the invention to describe how the system determines the level of
`
`access for the user. The ’983 patent primarily relies on identifiers intrinsic to the
`
`user. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at 14. The invention describes using this user data to
`
`create a unique “session” for the user which will control the user’s access to a data
`
`repository. An “access module” 300 creates a session node 1000. See EX1001 at
`
`FIG. 10.
`
` 
` 
`
`8 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Figure 10 of ’983 patent (EX1001).
`
`
`
`The session node acts as the system’s access ticket, determining the level of
`
`access the user has from his location at the time of his request. EX1001 at 18:1-
`
`19:52, Figs. 7, 10 & 11; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at 15. The system disclosed in the
`
`’983 patent then uses the session node to compare the user’s allowed data to the
`
`requested data. See id., see also id. at FIG. 5; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at 15.
`
` 
` 
`
`9 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Figure 5 of ’983 patent (EX1001).
`
`
`
`If the requested data contains data which the user is not authorized to access,
`
`it can be redacted or replaced with a phrase of the designer’s choosing. See
`
`EX1001 at 18:28-19:40, FIG. 7; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at 16. Finally the data is
`
`compiled into a readable format and presented to the user. EX1001 at 19:41-52.;
`
`EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at 16.
`
` 
` 
`
`10 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Figure 7 of ’983 patent (EX1001).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of filing the
`
`provisional application for the ’983 patent, i.e., September 30, 1999, would be
`
`familiar with network security and have at least the equivalent of a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in electrical or computer engineering, with multiple years (two or
`
`more) of experience in the field of software design, development, or evaluation.
`
`EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at 17. A higher level of education may make up for less
`
`experience. (Id.)
`
` 
` 
`
`11 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`C. Prosecution History
`
`On September 30, 1999, Stephen Strazza filed application number
`
`09/406,196, titled “Systems and methods for controlling access to data maintained
`
`in a repository.” See EX1012 (’983 file history) at 8. The original application
`
`included 23 claims. Id. at 42–49.
`
`On April 8, 2002, Examiner Young Won issued a non-final office action,
`
`objecting to the drawings and the specification and rejecting claims 19, 20, and 22
`
`as anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,088,728 to Bellemore et al. (Bellmore), claims 1–7,
`
`13, 14, 16–18, 21, and 22 as obvious in light of Bollemore in view of U.S. Patent
`
`6,009,442 to Chen et al. (Chen), and claim 23 as obvious in light of Bellmore in
`
`view of Chen and U.S. Patent 5,850,490 to Johnson (Johnson). See EX1012 (’983
`
`file history) at 98–100, 100–108, 108–110. While they were objected to as
`
`depending from a rejected claim, the Examiner indicated that claims 8, 9, 10–12,
`
`and 15 would be allowable if written in independent form, because neither
`
`Bellemore nor Chen taught the recited language. Id. at 110–113.
`
`Two months later on June 27, 2002, Mr. Strazza, and his attorney Thomas
`
`M. Marshall met and conferred with Examiner Won and Examiner Won’s
`
`supervisor primary examiner. Id. at 145. In that conference, Mr. Strazza was
`
`“asked to further describe in claim language applicant’s forresta identity.” Id. at
`
`145.
`
` 
` 
`
`12 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Complying, Mr. Strazza filed amended claims on July 6, 2016, id. at 119,
`
`adding language from the specification directly into claim 19. See id. at 145. He
`
`then rewrote allowable claims 9, 10, and 15 in independent form, and rewrote
`
`claims 19, 20, and 22 to include further limitations. Id. In addition, Mr. Strazza
`
`acknowledged that the feature he was basing his patentability arguments on was
`
`the uniquely named “forresta” element. Id. at 145.
`
`Further, Mr. Strazza stated that “[a]s presently claimed, this invention is
`
`based on the forresta identity being assigned by the data access control means or
`
`method steps to the transmission itself wholly independent from and unrelated to
`
`the identity or operational state of the user.” Id. at 146.
`
`By this amendment, Mr. Strazza also sought to distinguish Chatterjee et al.
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,024,375), Peterson et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,303,179), Kullick et al.
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,997), Ferguson et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,237,011), and Anglin
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,260,069). Id. at 147–48.
`
`Two months later on August 8, 2002, Examiner Won issued an examiner’s
`
`amendment cancelling claims 25-31 and allowing the patent. Id. at 209. The
`
`examiner did not indicate any reasons for allowability. Id. at 209–211.
`
`On November 7, 2014, the patent expired because the maintenance fees were
`
`not paid. Id. at 217. On May 6, 2015, the ’983 patent was assigned to Plano
`
`Encryption Technologies, along with U.S. Patent 6,587,858. The assignment is
`
` 
` 
`
`13 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`recorded at Reel/Frame 035583/0938. The two patents have very similar subject
`
`matter, and were filed on the same day by the same inventor, but are not formally
`
`linked and were examined by different patent examiners.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`“[T]he Board’s 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. 201 2).
`
`Under Phillips v. AWH Corp. 41 5 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc),
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meanings as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
`
`having taken into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and
`
`the prosecution history of record. See, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc., v. AIP Acquisition,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper No. 20 at 2–3 (July 10, 2014).
`
`Any claim terms not included in the discussion below should be given their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings in light of the specification, as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A. “Forresta”
`
`After a diligent search, the word Forresta was not found in any known
`
`Romantic or Germanic language, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`unfamiliar with its use. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 20. Thus, it has no ordinary
`
`meaning in the “common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art.” See
`
` 
` 
`
`14 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 2015-1732 (Fed.
`
`Cir. July 28, 2016) (slip op.).
`
`Based on its use, context, and all available evidence, a POSA reading the
`
`specification would understand the term “forresta” here to mean any passive data
`
`which can be used to identify the user’s level of access to a repository of data. This
`
`would include, for example, the user’s IP address, the geographic location of
`
`request, or any other indictor which may identify the user. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.)
`
`at ¶ 21.
`
`For example, the specification states “forresta” is “passive information”
`
`included within the user’s request. See ’983 patent at 3:31–34. The specification
`
`also uses the terms like “forresta value” (id. at 4:23; 6:43; 12:14; 12:17; 12:19) and
`
`“forresta argument” (id. at 6:42; 6:46; 7:16; 12:12). These variations of the term
`
`“forresta” are not clearly defined by the specification. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at
`
`¶ 21. Nor, however, are these variations used in the claims. Id. A POSA would
`
`understand the use of “forresta” in these terms is intended to indicate the value as
`
`been influenced by the forresta information. Id.
`
`B. “Fragment[s]”
`
`“Fragments” is defined in the specification as “files.” EX1001 at 7:20–26. A
`
`POSA would understand the term to include data that can be compartmentalized
`
`based on the designer’s parameters, allowing him to exclude any data he or she
`
` 
` 
`
`15 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`may wish. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶¶ 22-23. This data could include the use of
`
`specific phrases, images, links, or objects found on the requested site. See EX1001
`
`at FIG. 4; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶¶ 22-23.
`
`Figure 4 of ’983 patent.
`C. “means for allowing access to a repository of data by a plurality of
`clients over at least one communications link connected to said
`computer systems” [claim 1]
`
`
`
`Challenged claim 1 recites “means for allowing access to a repository of
`
`data by a plurality of clients over at least one communications link connected to
`
`said computer systems.” EX1001 at 20:39-42. In determining whether a particular
`
`limitation should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph/(f) as “means-
`
`plus-function” language, “the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or
`
`absence of the word ‘means’ but whether the words of the claim are understood by
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the
`16 
` 
` 
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC¸ 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Here, Petitioner submits that this claim term should be construed as
`
`means-plus-function limitation because the surrounding claim language does not
`
`provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`“Construing a means-plus function claim term is a two-step process. The
`
`court must first identify the claimed function. . . . Then, the court must determine
`
`what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed
`
`function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The claim itself identifies the claimed function: “allowing access to a
`
`repository of data by a plurality of clients over at least one communications link
`
`connected to said computer systems.” The ’983 patent identifies the relevant
`
`structure as “server computer 102 contains . . . the data access control (‘DAC’)
`
`process 106 of the present invention.” Id. at 4:60-67, FIGs. 1 and 2; see EX1002
`
`(Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 25.
`
`D. Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 Means-Plus-Function Constructions
`The preamble to challenged claim 1 recites “means for allowing access to a
`
`repository of data by a plurality of clients over at least one communications link
`
`connected to said computer systems, data access control means comprising...”
`
`EX1001 at 20:39–42. The remaining limitations in claim 1 and dependent claims
`
`2-8, only contain additional “means for” limitations that further define the claimed
`
` 
` 
`
`17 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“data access control means” of claim 1. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 26. Therefore,
`
`the “means for” limitations found claims 1-4, 6, and 7 all have the same
`
`corresponding structure as the claimed “data access control means”—namely,
`
`“server computer 102 contains . . . the data access control (‘DAC’) process 106 of
`
`the present invention.” Id. at 4:60–67, FIGs. 1 and 2.
`
`E. “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” [claim 9]
`
`Challenged claim 9 recites “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.” EX1001 at 22:52–54. This claim term should be
`
`construed as means-plus-function limitation because the surrounding claim
`
`language does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 27. The claim identifies the claimed function:
`
`“organizing data into groups of one or more elements through a user interface
`
`based on criteria established by the designer of the repository.” The ’983 patent
`
`identifies the relevant structure as “reference tool 500,” which is “a process of the
`
`current invention that is executed by the designer as a standalone method. It is
`
`typically executed on a computer that is not the server 102 (Fig. 1).” Id. at 7:57–
`
`8:5, Fig. 5; see also id. at 8:6–67; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 27
`
` 
` 
`
`18 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`F. Claims 9 and 10 Means Plus Function Constructions
`Claims 9 and 10 contain a number of means plus function limitations. Id. at
`
`22:53–25:8. These claim terms should be construed as means-plus-function
`
`limitations because the surrounding claim language does not provide sufficient
`
`structure to perform the claimed functions. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 28. The
`
`structure disclosed in the specification for performing these claimed functions is
`
`the “server computer 102 [that] contains . . . the data access control (‘DAC’)
`
`process 106 of the present invention.” Id. at 4:60–67, FIGS. 1 and 2; EX1002
`
`(Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 28.
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 is rendered obvious over Shannon
`(EX1006) in view of He ’451 (EX1003)
`1. Shannon (EX1006)
`
`Shannon is directed to an “Access control of network data.” Shannon
`
`(EX1006) at Title. Shannon describes “An access control technique to limit access
`
`to information content such as available on the Internet.” Id. at Abstract. The
`
`system and methods disclosed in Shannon “provide[] access control not based only
`
`upon content, but rather, based primarily upon the identity of the computers or
`
`users making the requests.” Id. The access control disclosed in Shannon “may be
`
`determined by comparing client source information against a database of Uniform
`
` 
` 
`
`19 
`
` 
`
`

`
`[PR20l6-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`
`Resource Locators (URLs), IP addresses, or other resource identification data
`
`specifying the data requested by the client.” Id. As illustrated in Figure 1, Shannon
`
`discloses a network device 100 that acts as a “gateway,
`
`configured ...to monitor
`
`7’ G‘
`
`the data communications that pass between clients connected to the LAN 40 and
`
`servers connected to the WAN 45.” Id. at 625-9; Fig. 1.
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Shannon (EX1006) Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`2. He ’451 (EX1003)
`
`He ’451 is directed to a “Security System and Method for Network Element
`
`Access.” He ’451 (EX1003) at Title. He ’451 describes connecting a network
`
`security server to a network “to control access to the network elements and protect
`
`network resources and information.” Id. at Abstract. This network is illustrated in
`
`Figure 2.
`
`He ’451 (EX1003) at Fig. 2
`
`
`
`He ’451 discloses a “network security server (NSS; also called the master
`
`server)” 208 that includes “a network authentication 202, user credential control
`
`204 and network element access control 206.” Id. at 11:34–40.
`
` 
` 
`
`21 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`3. Motivation to combine He ’451 (EX1003) and Shannon (EX1006)
`
`Both He ’451 and Shannon are concerned with the unauthorized access to
`
`information over a network. He ‘451 (EX1003) at 1:30–33; Shannon (EX1006) at
`
`1:44–48. Both offer solutions that allow access to data from a repository based on
`
`the identity of the user. See e.g., He ’451 (EX1003) at 2:24–30; Shannon (EX1006)
`
`at 7:11–13, 7:21–34; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 37. Additionally, both references
`
`provide a centralized access control component that separate from the user
`
`component and the server component to which the user component is requesting
`
`access. EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 37. This feature makes their systems more
`
`efficient and difficult to circumvent, and it also makes the two systems compatible
`
`with one another. Id.
`
`Shannon criticizes prior art access control systems that restrict access
`
`“primarily upon content” and do so “at either the server or the client,” and provides
`
`a solution that instead restricts access “based upon the requests made by whom, at
`
`what times, and according to different categories of subject matter.” EX1006 at
`
`4:26-31; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 37. To do so, Shannon creates a system in
`
`which the identity of the user can by confirmed using passive information, like log-
`
`on identity and geographic location. See, e.g., Shannon (EX1006) at 6:4–8, 7:11–
`
`13, 7:21–34; EX1002 (Cohen Decl.) at ¶ 37.
`
` 
` 
`
`22 
`
` 
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,466,983 B1
`IPR2016-01644, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Shannon provides a centralized “gateway,” located at an Internet service
`
`provider (ISP) for example, that “monito