Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`Entered: August 24, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION AND VIMEO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LINK ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`____________
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`Entered: August 24, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RPX CORPORATION AND VIMEO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LINK ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`____________
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`RPX Corporation and VIMEO, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,480,694
`B2 (“the ’694 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Link Engine Technologies LLC.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration
`of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the claims
`challenged in the Petition. For the reasons expressed below, we institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1–33 of the ’694 patent.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’694 patent is asserted against VIMEO Inc. in
`Case No. 0:2-16-cv-01070 in the United States District Court, Eastern
`District of Texas. Pet. 1.
`C. The ’694 Patent
`The ’694 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “Web Playlist System, Method, and
`Computer Program,” relates generally to a computer program that displays a
`sequence of web pages, i.e. a playlist, to a viewer and provides a control
`panel which allows the user to control the display. Ex. 1001, 1:52–57, 5:20–
`21. By way of example, the ’694 patent explains that the computer program
`could be implemented by an internet browser retrieving a plurality of
`network addresses, e.g. uniform resource locators (“URL’s”), from a
`computer memory and displaying the addresses in a panel in a browser
`window. Id. at 5:6–21, Fig. 3. Figure 3 of the ’694 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’694 patent, above, depicts browser window 304 including a
`display of the “GoogleNews” web page identified in a playlist of network
`addresses 302 and shown darkened in the panel on the left-hand side of the
`browser window.
`The browser window may include also a control panel as shown in
`annotated Figure 4 from the ’694 patent, reproduced in part below and
`enlarged for ease of viewing.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`
`
`Partial Figure 4 of the ’694 patent, above with annotations, illustrates a
`control panel, a portion of which is highlighted in yellow (no reference
`number), including for example, play button 402 and stop button 404. See
`Id. at 6:3–18. Also illustrated it “Duration” box 422, which conveys to the
`viewer a default time, “30 sec”, for the web page to be displayed. Id. at
`7:35–37.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 7, 13, 20 and 28 are independent.1
`Each of dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–19 depend directly or indirectly
`from respective independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Claims 21–27 depend
`directly or indirectly from claim 20, and dependent claims 29–33 depend
`
`
`1 As noted by Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Greenspun, there is significant
`overlap and similarity across the independent claims. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 172.
`To this point, Patent Owner has confined its substantive arguments in its
`Preliminary Response to claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 6–16 (Substantively
`arguing only claim 1 in Grounds 1 and 7.).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`directly from independent claim 28. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject
`matter and is reproduced below:
`1. A computer device executing an Internet browser comprising:
`at least one browser window configured to display to a user at
`least one web page identified by one of a plurality of network
`addresses in computer memory, said network addresses
`representing a sequence;
`a playlist engine configured to retrieve user selected network
`address(es) from the sequence, and further configured to
`display, in the browser window, web pages corresponding to
`the user selected network addresses; and
`a control panel configured to enable a user to select for display
`in the browser window(s) at least one of the web pages
`corresponding to the user selected network address(es), the
`control panel having a play mode control which when selected
`by the user causes the playlist engine to retrieve successive
`addresses from the sequence in the absence of user selection
`and
`to display
`in
`the browser window web pages
`corresponding to the retrieved successive addresses, the web
`pages each displayed for one or more predefined durations;
`wherein the network addresses are associated with one or more
`duration values, the predefined duration for each web page
`specified by the associated duration value; and
`further comprising a timer configured to display, for at least one
`of the displayed web pages, the time remaining for the playlist
`engine to display the web page.
`Ex. 1001, 15:55–16:13.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following specific grounds.2
`References
`Quimby3 and Quimby CD4
`Quimby and Lenz5
`Quimby and Maddalozzo6
`Quimby and Barrett7
`Quimby, Barrett and Lenz
`Quimby, Barrett and Maddalozzo
`Lenz
`Lenz and Maddalozzo
`Lenz and Barrett
`Lenz, Barrett and Maddalozzo
`
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103 1–4, 7–10, 13–17, 20–31
`§ 103 5, 11, 18, 32
`§ 103 6, 12, 19, 33
`§ 103 1–4, 7–10, 13–17, 20–31
`§ 103 5, 11, 18, 32
`§ 103 6, 12, 19, 33
`§ 103 1–5, 7–11, 13–18, 20–32
`§ 103 6, 12, 19, 33
`§ 103 1–5, 7–11, 13–18, 20–32
`§ 103 6, 12, 19, 33
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`II.
`A. Legal Standard
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`
`
`2 Petitioner supports its challenge with a Declaration of Philip Greenspun,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1010). See infra.
`3 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent Appl’n. Pub. 2002/0199002 Al (Dec. 26, 2002).
`4 Ex. 1006, CD including program code, submitted with Quimby Pub.
`2002/0199002 Al.
`5 Ex. 1007, WO 98/20434 A3 (May 14, 1998).
`6 Ex. 1008, U.S. Patent No. 6,460,060 B1 (Oct. 1, 2002).
`7 Ex. 1009, Dan Barrett, ESSENTIAL JAVASCRIPTTM FOR WEB
`PROFESSIONALS, Second Ed., Prentice Hall, 2003.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
` Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification
`“reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that
`differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s
`lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d
`1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We apply this standard to the claims of the
`’694 patent.
`B. Playlist engine
`All challenged claims recite the term “playlist engine.” For example,
`claim 1 recites “a computer device executing an Internet browser comprising
`. . . a playlist engine configured to retrieve user selected network address(es)
`from the sequence, and further configured to display, in the browser
`window, web pages corresponding to the user selected network addresses.”
`According to Patent Owner, the term “playlist engine” should be construed
`as “a software program or series of software programs that is a component of
`an internet browser and is controlled by the play mode control of the control
`panel.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Petitioner did not propose an express
`construction of “playlist engine” in its Petition. See Pet. 10–11.
`We agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term “playlist engine” based on the specification
`encompasses “a software program or series of software programs.” See Ex.
`1001, 4:52–55, 5:43–44 (“[t]he playlist engine is implemented as a software
`program.”). For purposes of this Decision, however, we do not adopt the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`remainder of Patent Owner’s construction. Patent Owner argues that “claim
`1 requires that the playlist engine is a component of an internet browser”
`(Prelim. Resp. 4), but other claims do not require this. See, e.g., independent
`claim 7 (reciting a “web page display system for use with an Internet
`browser having a browser window . . . the system comprising: a playlist
`engine.”) (emphasis added). Although the specification provides an example
`where the “[t]he internet browser . . . comprises a playlist engine” (Ex. 1001,
`5:39–40 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 5)), the specification provides other
`examples that do not limit the playlist engine to being a component of the
`internet browser. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:15–36. Therefore, we decline to
`construe the term “playlist engine” to be “a component of an internet
`browser” because such a limiting interpretation is not dictated by all of the
`claims or by the specification. A “playlist engine” may be, but is not
`required to be, part of an internet browser, unless a claim so specifies.
`We are not persuaded that the “playlist engine” term needs further
`elucidation with respect to its relationship with the recited “control panel.”
`Claim 1 is clear on its face how the playlist engine operates when a play
`mode, i.e. play button, on the control panel is selected by a user:
`the control panel having a play mode control which when
`selected by the user causes the playlist engine to retrieve
`successive addresses from the sequence.
`Ex. 1001, 16:1–4. We observe also that the specification states clearly that
`using the control panel is “one embodiment of the preferred form internet
`browser . . . that enables a user to select for display at least one of the web
`pages from the sequence. Id. at 5:64–67. Thus, although we understand that
`the “control panel” is a necessary element of claim 1, we determine on the
`intrinsic evidence of the claim language, consistent with the specification,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`that its relationship relative to the playlist engine is well-expressed in the
`ordinary meaning of the claim itself.
`Accordingly, we determine on the present record that a “playlist
`engine” is “a software program or series of software programs” undertaking
`the respective functions described in the claims as would have been
`understood by one of ordinary skill read in the context of the claims.
`C. Other Constructions
`Petitioner offers constructions for several terms, namely “header
`section” (claims 14–16, 21–23), “time remaining for . . .” (claims 1, 7, 13,
`20, 28), “default duration value (claims 2–3, 8–9, 15–16, 22–23, 29–30), and
`“a data file” (claims 13–27). Pet. 10–11. We do not provide explicit
`constructions for these claim terms because doing so is not necessary for our
`determination of whether to institute inter partes review of the asserted
`claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`III. ANALYSIS
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`A. Claims 1–4, 7–10, 13–17, and 20–31— Alleged obviousness over
`Quimby and Quimby CD
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4, 7–10, 13–17, and 20–31 would have
`been obvious over Quimby.8 Pet. 12–22. Petitioner has established a
`
`
`8 Where we refer generally to “Quimby,” we refer also to the material of
`Quimby CD (Ex. 1006) as it was incorporated by reference in the Quimby
`patent application, U.S. Patent Application, Pub. No. US 2002/0199002.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1–4, 7–10,
`13–17, and 20–31 are obvious for the reasons explained below.
`1. Quimby
`Quimby discloses a customizable website access system including a
`software program having a composer portion and a performing portion. Ex.
`1005, Abst. Quimby explains that the composer portion is used by a website
`developer to create the performing portion for a viewer, including a slide
`show of web pages:
`The composing portion of the software program is used to create
`a presentation. The presentation includes a list of URLs for
`display, a desired sequence of display of the URLs, and a
`duration of display of the URLs. The performing portion of the
`software program operates to load and display the presentation
`to a user of the web in an automatic slide show presentation.
`Id. Figure 1 of Quimby is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Quimby, above, illustrates diagrammatically composer 12,
`presentation 20, and performer 14 implemented on host server 16.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4, below, Quimby teaches also system-interactive
`user area 54 that appears as a “control panel” to control the presentation. Id.
`¶¶ 30, 32.
`
`
`Quimby’s Figure 4, above, depicts system-interactive user area 54 including
`pause button 62, site-forward button 64, site-backward button 66, and time
`remaining field 58 providing an “indication of how much longer the current
`web site will be displayed.” Id. ¶¶ 32–33.
`2. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that Quimby discloses a “website access system”
`including a computer and web browser for retrieving website URLs for
`display to a user. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7, 21, 23, 37, 40; Ex. 1006
`1:13–23; Ex. 1010 ¶¶67–70, 80–81). Petitioner contends that Quimby’s
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`website access system includes also displaying a web site, or page, in a
`browser window from “a list of URLs” and implementing “a desired
`sequence of display of the URLs, and a duration of display of the URLs.”
`Pet. 12, 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 7, Ex. 1006 ¶ 40).
`Additionally, Petitioner contends that the claimed “playlist engine”
`that displays the sequence as a slide show of web pages to the user is
`disclosed by Quimby’s “performer” software that “‘operates to load and
`automatically display the presentation to a user of the web according to the
`URL list’ and ‘sequence of display’” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7, 40).
`Petitioner asserts further that a “control panel” and “play mode” for
`controlling the slide show as it is displayed to a user are also taught by the
`“performer” software where Quimby states that
`[t]he performing portion of the software program also preferably
`provides a control panel whereby a web user can not only pause
`or stop the presentation but can also change the sequence and/or
`duration of display of each of the URLs of the presentation.
`Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 8).
`Petitioner argues that the claimed “duration values” and “timer”
`display are both discussed and shown expressly in Figures 3 and 4 of
`Quimby. Id. at 21–23. Figure 4 as shown above, Petitioner argues,
`illustrates in Quimby’s control panel “time remaining field 58” as a display
`of remaining time for a web page to be shown to a viewer. Pet. 21 (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 32 and Fig. 8). Also, Figure 3 is relied upon by Petitioner to
`show that Quimby teaches that a desired, i.e. predefined, time duration value
`can be entered for each listed URL to be displayed to a user for the
`predefined time during the slide show. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶31).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner makes two specific arguments with respect to claim 1,
`first, that Quimby fails to disclose “at least one browser window,” and
`second, that Quimby also does not disclose a “playlist engine.” See Prelim.
`Resp. 6–12. We address both of these arguments in turn.
`browser window
`Patent Owner argues specifically that the Petition fails to adequately
`“allege that the claimed ‘browser window’ is inherently disclosed by
`Quimby or would be an obvious modification of Quimby.” Prelim. Resp. 6.
`Patent Owner points out that nowhere in Quimby is the term “browser
`window” used and contends that Petitioner’s allegations, as well as those of
`its Declarant, are conclusory and unsupported by evidence in the record. Id.
`at 6–7.
`We agree that Quimby does not expressly state that its “web site
`access system” has a “browser window.” Petitioner, however, relies on the
`disclosure in Quimby that the URLs are presented in a “display” to the
`viewer. Specifically, as noted by Petitioner, Quimby states that “the present
`invention exhibits display screen 50 to the user, incorporating web site
`display area 52 and system-interactive user area 54.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex.
`1005, Fig. 4, Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 40, 83), and see Ex. 1005 ¶ 40, Fig. 8. Although
`Patent Owner disputes the premise, we recognize that Petitioner and its
`Declarant, Dr. Greenspun, equate “website display area 52” with the claimed
`“browser window.” See Ex. 1010 ¶ 83 (“The source code of Quimby,
`notably jsperformer.asp, generates an HTML and JavaScript file (I may refer
`to this as the ‘Generated File,’ as noted above in paragraph 70) intended for
`rendering by a standard web browser of 2001, such as Mozilla or MSIE.”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`We are persuaded that the claimed “browser window” is adequately
`disclosed by Quimby for several reasons. First, the Quimby CD (Ex. 1006)
`and computer code, as shown in part below, which was filed with and
`incorporated by reference into Quimby, clearly indicates that
`JSPERFORMER.ASP 1.0.1 invokes either Microsoft’s Internet Explorer
`browser, or Mozilla’s “Navigator” browser. Ex. 1006, 1:13–23, and see Ex.
`1005 ¶ 2.
`
`The computer code shown above from Quimby CD shows an if/else
`statement invoking either MS Internet Explorer or Mozilla’s Navigator,
`depending on a user’s choice of browser. Id. Thus, the code indicates that
`performer 14 uses a browser. And, we infer from Quimby’s description that
`the browser includes a browser window. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (“The performer
`14 is that portion of the software of system 10 that a user/visitor 24 to the
`web utilizes to access and view the customized presentation 20.”). Second,
`the Petition refers specifically to paragraphs 83 and 84 of Dr. Greenspun’s
`Declaration, which explain that at least Figures 4 and 8 of Quimby illustrate
`a “browser window,” referred to as “web site display area 52.” See Pet 14–
`15. Although Quimby does not refer explicitly to web site display area 52 as
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`a “browser window,” we find Dr. Greenspun’s testimony on this point
`credible. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–84. Moreover, Patent Owner does not explain
`what else web site display area 52 would be. It is well settled that a
`reference need not teach a limitation in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d
`656, 660 (CCPA 1977). And, giving some weight to Dr. Greenspun’s
`testimony, we find it reasonable to equate “web site display area 52” in
`Quimby with the claimed “browser window,” either of which present to the
`viewer a web page and the ability to interact with the web page. Compare
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 8 (“FIG. 8 depicts the web site of FIG. 6, wherein the present
`invention has been invoked.”) with Ex. 1001, Fig. 4.
`playlist engine
`Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments,
`Quimby’s “client browser” fails to disclose the claimed “playlist engine.”
`Prelim. Resp. 8–9 (citing Pet. 17). Patent Owner contends also that “the
`‘playlist engine” is not an internet browser” and that Dr. Greenspun’s
`testimony fails to adequately address and support such a position. Id. at 10
`(citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 70, 82–84, and 108; Pet. 17–18).
`We find, based on the briefs and the evidence presented, that Patent
`Owner’s position takes Petitioner’s argument somewhat out of context.
`Petitioner asserts more accurately that it is Quimby’s performer, or
`“performing portion,” i.e., JSPERFORMER.ASP, that teaches the claimed
`“playlist engine.” Pet. 17. This is so, Petitioner argues, because when
`activated the performer generates an HTML and JavaScript file (referred to
`by Dr. Greenspun as “the Generated File”), “which is sent to the client” and
`upon “processing the Generated File, the client browser then retrieves page
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`addresses from the Generated File and displays the corresponding web
`pages.” Pet. 17.
`Keeping in mind Quimby’s Figure 1, above, we understand that
`performer 14 and presentation 20 are located on server 16. When performer
`14 is activated, as shown in Figure 2B, below, it “operates to load the
`presentation 20 including the URLs and presentation preferences, per
`operations block 330, and to sequence through the URLs with display to the
`user 24.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 30.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`Figure 2B of Quimby, above, is a flow diagram of presentation 20 being
`loaded and displayed to a user.
`Quimby explains further that performer 14 can be activated “by the
`user 24 entering a web site that has been preconfigured with the composer
`12.” Id. We understand by this description that the user enters, requests, or
`selects a particular website, through a client browser which triggers
`performer 14 to load presentation 20 via the “Generated File,” including a
`list of additional URLs associated with the selected website, “and to
`sequence through the URLs with display to the user 24, per operations block
`332.” Id. Our understanding is ostensibly consistent with Dr. Greenspun’s
`testimony explaining that in Quimby a client, i.e. user, request for a website
`gets a response from server 16 with JSPERFORMER.ASP generating an
`HTML/JavaScript data file, i.e. the “Generated File,” that is returned to the
`client browser and “intended for rendering by a standard web browser of
`2001, such as Mozilla or MSIE.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 83.
`We agree in principle with Patent Owner’s assertion that pursuant to
`the language of the challenged claims, an internet browser is different from
`“a playlist engine.” See Prelim. Resp. 9. For instance, and with reference to
`our claim construction discussion above, by use of the term “comprising” a
`reasonable understanding of the claim language and the relationship of these
`elements is that the claimed Internet Browser includes inter alia “a playlist
`engine” that performs particular functions, namely “retriev[ing] user selected
`network address(es) from the sequence, and further configured to display, in
`the browser window, web pages corresponding to the user selected network
`addresses.” Ex. 1001 15:61–64. Patent Owner’s contention that “a playlist
`engine” is not an internet browser does not, however, explain why the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`presenter portion as described by Quimby cannot satisfy the “playlist
`engine” requirement as asserted by Petitioner and explained by Dr.
`Greenspun. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 108 (“The playlist engine required by 13.2 (see
`Claim Chart) is generated by JavaScript code generated at lines 320-321 of
`\jsperformer.asp.”).
`We are persuaded on the evidence presented at this point in the
`proceeding that Quimby discloses the elements of claim 1 including
`computer software and hardware that would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art as a “browser window” and a “playlist engine” as
`recited in claim 1.
`
`3. Claims 2–33
`Patent Owner directs the entirety of its arguments with respect to
`Quimby to independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 6–10. Also, Patent Owner
`relies on its arguments relative to claim 1 for all of the remaining
`independent claims, i.e. claims 7, 13, 20, and 28, challenged in the Petition.
`See id. at 10–12 (“Patent Owner alleges that none of these secondary
`references “cures the above-described deficiencies of Quimby with respect
`to the independent claims of the ‘694 Patent.”). With respect to the
`dependent claims challenged in Grounds 1–6, Patent Owner contends only
`that the Petition fails to show that the combinations of Quimby and any of
`Lenz, Maddalozzo, and Barrett, or the combination of Quimby, Barrett and
`either Lenz or Maddalozzo, discloses or renders obvious the elements of the
`dependent claims. Id.
`We have reviewed each of the challenged independent and dependent
`claims in light of Quimby, as well as the secondary prior art to Lenz,
`Maddalozzo, and Barrett, and find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive at this
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`stage of the proceeding with respect to these dependent claims as well. See
`Pet. 12–42.
`Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented in the
`Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the respective grounds
`of unpatentability of claims 1–33 as obvious over Quimby, Quimby and the
`respective combinations with Lenz, Maddalozzo, or Barrett, and the
`combination of Quimby, Barrett and either Lenz or Maddalozzo, under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a).
`B. Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–18, and 20–32— Alleged obviousness over
`Lenz
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–18, and 20–32 would have
`been obvious over Lenz. Pet. 42–64. Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–18, and
`20–32 are obvious for the reasons explained below.
`1. Lenz
`Lenz teaches a computer system including web server 102 connecting
`via the internet to various personal computer and server systems 106A–B,
`108A–C, as illustrated generally in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a “communication system includ[ing] a web server
`102, a wide area network 104, destination servers 106A, 106B, and personal
`computers 108A-C. Ex. 1007, 4:31–33. Lenz explains that when web
`server 102 receives a request for a certain URL from a user of a personal
`computer, for example from destination computer 108A, it subsequently
`“transmits the requested web page to the destination computer 108A,” which
`“receives the web page data and displays the web page.” Ex. 1007, 5:5–12.
`Lenz explains further that the invention includes a server module stored on
`server 102 and a client module that is transmitted to the destination
`computer 108A upon receiving a request. Id. at 5:15–22. The server
`module permits a webmaster to build and modify a menu selection that is a
`sequence of webpages that is to be stored on server 102 and presented to a
`client computer upon request. See id. at 9:18–10:13 (Lenz stating “[u]sing
`control buttons “[t]he webmaster can then move, add, delete, or copy web
`pages in order to develop a suitable web site presentation sequence.”). The
`client module includes “Vayu Web client module 1104,” which displays
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`menu 1206 to a user, and as shown in the flow diagram in Figure 12 of Lenz
`reproduced below, the user can select menu item 1208 to initiate a display
`sequence, i.e. a presentation, of web pages 1210, 1212. Id. at 15:10–23.
`
`
`
`Figure 12 of Lenz, above, illustrates a flow diagram of Vayu Web client
`module 1104. During the presentation at 1210, 1212, Lenz describes further
`that the user, i.e. client, can passively watch a predetermined display of web
`pages, or alternatively “[w]ithin each web page the client also has the option
`of manipulating a control panel.” Id. at 18:1–2.
`Operating in conjunction with Vayu client module 1104 on the
`destination computer is web page preload module 1106. See id. at Fig. 13.
`Where Vayu client module 1104 displays the website sequence presentation
`to the user and may provide the user the ability to interact and control
`aspects of the presentation, web page preload module 1106 works behind the
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`user interface to efficiently implement “a preload strategy to optimize the
`performance of the presentation of web pages to the client.” Id. at 15:7–8.
`For example, Lenz explains that “[a]fter determining the preloading priority
`for each web page, the web page preload module 1106 preloads 1308 the
`web pages having the highest priority.” Id. at 17:33–34. In addition, Lenz
`describes that a user is provided in the website display screen with a tool bar
`1504, shown for example in Figure 16, that “can also include status
`indicators 1606 to show the remaining time left to view this page.” Id. at
`19:19–20.
`
`2. Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Lenz discloses the claimed computer system and internet
`browser and teaches also a sequence of web pages stored as a presentation in
`a computer memory as menu files containing URLs that are retrieved and
`“displayed in order ‘when the user ultimately views this web site with their
`client PC and browser.’” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:18–33, 11:29–32, 12:1–
`13:18, 13:20–39, 14:5–11, Fig. 11; Ex. 1010 ¶ 145). Petitioner contends
`further that Lenz discloses a “playlist engine” that is the software, including
`preload module 1106 and Vayu web client module 1104, that retrieves,
`organizes, and displays the presentation to the user at the destination client
`PC. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 24:22–25, Fig. 12 (Nos. 1210, 1212); Ex. 1010 ¶
`144, 147).
`A “control panel” and “play mode control” are disclosed by Lenz,
`Petitioner asserts, because Lenz describes a user interface screen including
`start button 1502 such “that ‘[w]hen the user selects the button 1502, a
`sequence of pages may automatically be presented.’” Id. at 44 (citing Ex.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`1007, 18:1–30, Figs. 14–16; Ex 1010 ¶ 148). Petitioner contends that a
`“duration” of time a web page is displayed is taught by Lenz’s “transition”
`timer that transitions after a set period of time to a new web page. Id. at 46
`(citing Ex. 1007, 10:4–11, 11:2–10, Fig. 9). And, Petitioner argues, a
`“timer” indicating the time remaining to view a web page is shown in Lenz’s
`Figures 15 and 16 by status indicators 1606, which “show the remaining
`time left to view this page.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1007, 19:18–20; Ex. 1010 ¶
`150).
`
`browser window
`Patent Owner argues, similarly as with Quimby, that Lenz fails to
`disclose “at least one browser window,” as recited in claim 1, and that
`Petitioner fails to address this apparent shortcoming in Lenz. Prelim. Resp.
`12–13. As with Quimby, we agree that Lenz does not expressly state that its
`“web site access system” has a “browser window.”
`It is reasonably clear to us, in reviewing the Petition, that to meet the
`“browser window” element of claim 1 Petitioner relies on the disclosure in
`Lenz which discusses and illustrates web pages being displayed to a user on
`a destination PC. For example, Petitioner points out in its claim chart that
`Lenz states that “the user [ultimately] views this web site with their client
`PC and browser.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:30–31, 13:40–14:11).
`Petitioner’s citations to Lenz include portions describing use of a
`“conventional browser” on a “conventional personal computer” and
`references to Figure 15 illustrating a web page viewed by a user. Id. at 44–
`46 (citing Ex. 1007, 17:47, 18:1–30, Figs. 14–16; Ex. 1010 ¶ 148).
`We agree that Petitioner and its Declarant could not point to anywhere
`in Lenz that states the term “browser window.” See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1007,
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00886
`Patent 7,480,694 B2
`
`9:18–33) (“[t]he web pages are disp
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
