Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: March 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A
`VERIZON WIRELESS
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIDGE AND POST, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: March 9, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A
`VERIZON WIRELESS
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIDGE AND POST, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Petitioner”) filed a
`request for inter partes review of claims 1–24 (the “challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,657,594 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’594 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Bridge and Post, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review must not be instituted
`“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon
`considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review as to any claim of the
`’594 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner advises that the ’594 patent is the subject of a civil action,
`Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00094
`(E.D. Va.). Pet. 1–2. Petitioner also advises that the ’594 patent was the
`subject of an IPR petition filed by Unified Patents, Inc., IPR2017-01423.
`Pet. 2. Patent Owner identified the same matters, as well as related patent
`applications. Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. The ’594 Patent
`The ’594 patent relates to determining directed media to provide to a
`user on a network, such as the Internet, based on user preferences. Ex. 1001,
`1:20–22, 2:1–14. The directed media may include “advertisement, coupons,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`video, music, or any other media which is tailored to the user preferences.”
`Id. at 2:41–43. The ’594 patent notes that traditionally, users have been
`identified on a network through personal accounts or through downloaded
`programs on the user’s network access device (e.g., “cookies”). Id. at 1:29–
`32. To avoid the problems associated with using cookies to track a user’s
`computing device, such as a user blocking or deleting cookies (id. at 1:52–
`59), the ‘594 patent describes the use of user profiles associated with a
`persistent device identifier to identify a user’s network access device (id. at
`2:67–3:4, 3:33–36). “The device identifier may comprise a media access
`control address (MAC address), an international mobile station identity
`(IMSI), an international media equipment identity (IMEI), or any
`anonymous device identifier.” Id. at 36–39.
`A history module collects and maintains historic information about
`the network access device, including the number, date, and time of network
`accesses. Id. at 7:57–8:2. A profile engine generates user profiles based on
`the collected information and associates it with the persistent device
`identifier. Id. at 5:66–6:5, 6:64–7:1. The profile engine may incorporate into
`the profiles group characteristics, and include group identifiers indicating the
`associated group. Id. at 6:24–27. A media selection optimizer determines a
`directed media component based on the user profile. Id. at 2:15–29. The
`directed media is then provided to the user’s network access device. Id. at
`8:54–64.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–24 of the ’594 patent. Claims 1, 15,
`and 24 are independent and are substantially similar– the principal
`difference being that claim 1 recites a method, claim 15 recites a system, and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`claim 24 recites a machine-readable storage medium. Id. at 11:58–12:31,
`13:7–50, 14:17–59. Claim 1 is illustrative.
`1. A method for providing directed media to a user on a network,
`comprising:
`receiving a request from the user to access a content provider
`web site over a network through a network access device
`operated by the user;
`retrieving a persistent device identifier of the network access
`device;
`determining a current network address of the network access
`device and one or more characteristics of the access device,
`wherein the current network address is assigned to the network
`access device by a network service provider for a present
`network access session;
`retrieving historic information for the user, the historic
`information including patterns of usage for the network access
`device, and wherein the historic information comprises network
`access information including times and locations of network
`access and number of previous network accesses by the network
`access device;
`retrieving location-centric information for a location from which
`the user is accessing the network;
`generating a user profile based on the historic information for the
`user, the location-centric information, and the one or more
`characteristics of the access device;
`storing the user profile as a record that identifies the user through
`the current network address and the persistent device identifier
`associated with the network access device;
`incorporating
`into
`the user profile one or more group
`characteristics identifying a group with which the user is
`associated;
`assigning a group identifier to the group based on the patterns of
`usage;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`
`analyzing the retrieved device identifier, historic information,
`and location-centric information to determine a directed media
`component to be provided to the user or the group on the network
`access device, and
`placing directed media referenced by the directed media
`component in the web site requested by the user request from the
`content provider, wherein the directed media comprises content
`that is customized to the user based on the user profile.
`Id. at 11:58–12:31.
`D. Applied Evidence
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 6,487,538 B1, issued Nov. 26, 2002 (“Gupta I”)
`(Ex. 1004);
`(2) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0020242 A1,
`published Sep. 6, 2001 (“Gupta II”) (Ex. 1005);
`(3) International Patent Application Publication No.
`PCT/US00/11803, published Nov. 9, 2000 (“Parekh”) (Ex. 1006);
`(4) R. Droms, RFC 2131, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,
`March 1997 (“DHCP Protocol”) (Ex. 1008);
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 7,366,523 B2, issued Nov. 12, 2002 (“Viikari”)
`(Ex. 1010);
`(6) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0172154 A1,
`published Aug. 4, 2005 (“Short”) (Ex. 1011);
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Stephen Gray. (“Gray
`Decl.”) (Ex. 1013).
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Ground 1: Claims 1–3, 5–10, 13–17, and 19–24 are unpatentable
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Gupta I, Gupta II,
`Parekh and DHCP Protocol. Pet. 5.
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over the combination of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, DHCP Protocol
`and Viikari. Id.
`Ground 3: Claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`as obvious over the combination of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, DHCP
`Protocol and Short. Id.
`Ground 4: Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`obvious over the combination of Gupta I/II, Parekh, DHCP Protocol,
`Viikari, and Short. Id.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Consistent with that standard, we assign
`claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in the context
`of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms that are in controversy need
`be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “network access
`information” and “location-centric information.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner
`disagrees with Petitioner’s constructions and proposes that these terms be
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`given their plain meaning because a person of ordinary skill in the art
`(“POSITA”) would understand them without further construction. Prelim.
`Resp. 11–30.
`For purposes of our decision, we do not find it necessary to construe
`expressly any claim terms.
`
`B. Asserted References
`1. Gupta I (Ex. 1004)
`Gupta I relates to advertising on the Internet in which Internet Service
`Providers (ISPs), or proxies owned by an ISP, insert advertisements
`transmitted from a web host to a client. Ex. 1004, Abstract. Gupta I states
`that by providing the ISP with the ability to insert the advertisement,
`advertisements may appear on small web sites that do not normally attract
`advertisers. Id. at 6:17–19. Gupta I explains that an ISP may collect and
`store demographic information regarding a user in a profile, as the user
`utilizes an ISP typically to conduct Internet access. Id. at 6:24–26; 9:14–16.
`The profile information may be used to conduct targeted advertising to the
`user. Id. at 6:31–34. The profile information may be forwarded to an
`advertiser or advertising agency that evaluates and forwards back an
`advertisement for the proxy to transmit to the user. Id. at 6:41–44. Gupta
`explains, however, that if the user is at a public terminal, such as a library,
`the profile may be limited to the user’s recent history and information about
`the terminal and the terminal’s location. Id. at 10:2–5.
`2. Gupta II (Ex. 1005)
`Gupta II relates to the collection of user demographic information
`(“profile information”) and advertising on the Internet, in which ISPs, or
`their proxies, insert advertisements transmitted from a web host to a client.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract. The demographic information may include the user’s
`age, residence, credit history, etc., and may also include the web sites that
`the user has accessed, the time spent on each web site, and any internet
`searches performed by the user. Id. ¶ 33. The profile information may be
`used to conduct targeted advertising to the user or to customize the user’s
`display. Id. ¶ 34. Gupta II explains that the profile and demographic
`information can be utilized to individually customize information displayed
`to a customer. Id.
`
`3. Parekh (Ex. 1006)
`Parekh relates to determining the geographic location of an Internet
`user, profiling the user, and selectively delivering content information based
`on the geographic location. Ex. 1006, Abstract. For example, Parekh
`collects geographic information by taking an IP address or host name and
`determining the organization that owns the IP address. Id. at 5. Parekh
`determines the route to the host, analyzes it, and maps it against a database
`of stored geographic locations. Id. Parekh also gathers information about
`specific IP addresses based upon Internet user’s interactions with various
`web sites. Id. at 31. This information may include the types of web sites
`visited, and the pages hit, such as sports sites, auction sites, news sites, e-
`commerce sites, geographic information, bandwidth information, and time
`spent at the web site. Id. The information may be stored as a profile in a
`database by IP address. Id. The geographic location and profile information
`may be used by web sites to deliver content or advertising based on the
`geographic location and preferences of visitors. Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`
`4. DHCP Protocol (Ex. 1008)
`The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides
`configuration parameters to Internet hosts. Ex. 1008, 2. DHCP consists of
`two components: a protocol for delivering host-specific configuration
`parameters from a DHCP server to a host and a mechanism for allocation of
`network addresses to hosts. Id. DHCP is built on a client-server model,
`where designated DHCP server hosts allocate network addresses and deliver
`configuration parameters to dynamically configured hosts. Id.
`DHCP supports three mechanisms for IP address allocation. Id. at 3.
`In “automatic allocation,” DHCP assigns a permanent IP address to a client.
`Id. In “dynamic allocation,” DHCP assigns an IP address to a client for a
`limited period of time (or until the client explicitly relinquishes the address).
`Id. In “manual allocation,” a client’s IP address is assigned by the network
`administrator, and DHCP is used simply to convey the assigned address to
`the client. Id. A particular network will use one or more of these
`mechanisms, depending on the policies of the network administrator. Id.
`5. Viikari (Ex. 1010)
`Viikari relates to “techniques for providing customized content to
`wireless communications devices across a communications network,” (Ex.
`1010, 1:17–19) “based on the location of an access point that is in wireless
`communication with” a device. Id. at 2:11–12. Viikari does this, for
`example, by including a “location indicator” for the access point in a
`“resource request,” such as “a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request,”
`that is forwarded to a content server. Id. at 2:11–20. In response, the
`content server sends a resource, such as an “HTML document[],”
`customized to the device location indicated by the access point. Id. at Fig. 8,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`14:29–36.
`
`6. Short (Ex. 1011)
`Short relates to a method for providing custom digital content to
`wireless network enabled devices. Ex. 1011, Abstract. In order to provide
`custom content, Short uses “an identifier uniquely associated with the client
`device” (id. ¶10), such as “an IMEI (International Mobile Equipment
`Identifier) number” or “an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber
`Identification) number.” Id. ¶ 105.
`
`C. Ground 1 - Obviousness Over Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, and DHCP
`Protocol
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5–10, 13–17, and 19–24 of the
`’594 patent would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Gupta
`I, Gupta II, Parekh, and DHCP Protocol. Pet. 19–45. As noted above,
`claims 1, 15, and 24 are independent and are substantially similar. Petitioner
`combines its analysis of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, and DHCP Protocol with
`respect to the three independent claims, 1, 15, and 24. In the Preliminary
`Response, Patent Owner focuses on several alleged deficiencies in
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidentiary proof. After reviewing the Petition,
`and the arguments and evidence presented therein, we determine that
`Petitioner has not met its burden in demonstrating a reasonable likelihood
`that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the
`challenged claims. We discuss some of the deficiencies in the Petition
`below.
`
`1. Independent Claims 1, 15, and 24
`Representative claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
`retrieving historic information for the user, the
`historic information including patterns of usage
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`
`for the network access device, and wherein the
`historic information comprises network access
`information including times and locations of
`network access and number of previous network
`accesses by the network access device;
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:3–8. Claims 15 and 24 recite similar limitations. Id. at 13:19–
`25, 14:31–36.
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Gupta I, Gupta II, and Parekh
`to teach the recited limitation, asserting that Gupta I and Gupta II teach that
`“all URL requests, text, and other information” from a client device are
`“store[d] . . . locally in a raw database,” thereby enabling the proxy or ISP
`server to track “the time that a user spends on a particular website.” Pet. 33
`(citing Ex. 1004, 9:38–41; Ex. 1005 ¶ 57). Petitioner argues that a POSA
`would have understood that by “tracking all URL requests, it would be
`trivial to determine the number of previous network accesses” because those
`requests are stored as raw data. Id. (quoting Gray Decl. ¶ 83). Further,
`Petitioner argues, a POSA would have had reason to track the number of
`previous accesses because it “would help distinguish between a user’s
`‘propensity’ for visiting a web site and a user’s passing interest in doing so,
`thereby improving the tailoring of content to a user’s interests.” Id.
`Petitioner also argues Parekh teaches that when “an IP address has
`previously hit several e-commerce sites and sport sites in the network and
`that the address is located in California,” this enables provision of
`“dynamically tailored” content such as “show[ing] sports items for sale that
`are more often purchased by Californians, such as surf boards.” Pet. 35
`(quoting Ex. 1006, 33:10-15). This teaching, Petitioner argues, “allows for
`more customized experiences for users at e-commerce and information
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`sites.” Id. Petitioner argues that a POSA would understand this discussion
`in Parekh as describing “tracking the number, times and locations of
`networks accessed by a network access device because: (1) the reference to
`‘previously hit’ implies knowledge of repeat accesses, (2) the reference to
`‘dynamically tailored’ implies the ability to track access in real time in order
`to serve customized content during a particular session, and (3) the reference
`to the IP address being located in California implies tracking of the location
`of network access.” Id. (quoting Gray Decl. ¶ 89).
`Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner provides no direct
`evidence of the recited limitation “wherein the historic information
`comprises network access information including . . . number of previous
`network accesses by the network access device.” Prelim. Resp. 53. Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner’s Declarant “adds only the generic opinion that
`any raw data in a database can be counted.” Id. at 53–54.
`In connection with Figure 1, the ’594 Specification explains that:
`[u]nlike much of the prior art where users of computing devices
`are tracked through cookies on their computing devices or sites
`the users visit over the Internet, users of the present
`embodiment can be identified and their preferences determined
`and tracked through a user's act of logging onto a network 130
`or obtaining network service through a service provider 120.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:10–16 (emphasis added). The ’594 Specification explains
`that “a user activates the network access device 110 in order to communicate
`with the network 130.” Ex. 1001, 3:24–25. “The service provider 120 is a
`device configured to provide the network access device 110 access to the
`communications network 130.” Id. at 3:46–48 (emphasis added). “The
`service provider 120 is typically controlled by a business that supplies
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`network connectivity (e.g. Internet service provider, ‘ISP’).” Id. at 3:50–52.
`The flow chart depicted in Figure 6 of the ’594 Patent shows that after
`the user accesses the network, the user then requests content provider
`page(s). Id. at Fig. 6. The ’594 Specification explains that these content
`providers may be web sites, e-mailers, or file transport (FTP) sites. Id. at
`3:59–61. The ’594 Specification explains that “[t]ypically, the user will
`request access to a particular content provider.” Id. at 8:18–19. “The
`content provider 140 then provides the requested content to the requesting
`user.” Id. at 8:54–55; see Fig. 5.
`Independent Claims 1, 15, and 24 separately recite, and therefore,
`distinguish between, “a request from the user to access a content provider
`web site” and “network access.” These claims also require that the historic
`information retrieved for the user include “times and locations of network
`access and number of previous network accesses by the network access
`device.” Ex. 1001, cols 12–14 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner, however, appears to conflate, and therefore, blur the
`distinction between, the recited “request from the user to access a content
`provider web site” and “network access.” Petitioner argues that because
`Gupta I and Gupta II indicate that “all URL requests, text, and other
`information” from a client device are “store[d] . . . locally in a raw
`database,” thereby enabling a proxy or ISP server to track “the time that a
`user spends on a particular website” (Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:38–41; Ex.
`1005 ¶ 57)), that a POSA would have understood that by “tracking all URL
`requests in a raw database, it would be trivial to determine the number of
`previous network accesses by simply counting them since those requests are
`stored as raw data in a database.” (Ex. 1013 ¶ 83, emphasis added).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`
`Thus, Petitioner asserts, without sufficient explanation and factual
`support, that by simply counting URL requests (Uniform Resource Locator
`requests, i.e. requested web page or web site addresses), a POSA would be
`able to determine the number of previous network accesses. Petitioner,
`however, provides no factual basis or rationale for equating a user’s URL
`request for a web page with network access granted by an ISP, nor does
`Petitioner explain how “simply counting” the number of URL requests made
`by a user provides the number of previous network accesses granted by an
`ISP to the network access device.
`Moreover, Petitioner’s argument that Parekh’s discussion of
`“dynamically tailored” content somehow teaches “tracking the number,
`times and locations of networks accessed by a network access device,” is
`similarly unpersuasive. Pet. 35. Petitioner concludes, without sufficient
`explanation or factual support, that a POSA would understand this
`discussion in Parekh as describing “tracking the number, times and locations
`of networks accessed by a network access device.” Id.; see also Ex. 1013 ¶
`89.
`
`Petitioner, therefore, has not provided persuasive evidence of how a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the number of
`previous network accesses of a network access device by simply counting
`the number of URL requests made by the user of the device, or how
`dynamically tailoring content teaches the number of previous network
`accesses.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and
`arguments that the combined teachings of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, and
`DHCP Protocol make obvious the recited limitations of independent claims
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`1, 15 and 24. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to independent claims 1, 15, and 24
`as obvious over the combined teachings of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, and
`DHCP Protocol.
`
`2. Dependent Claims 2–3, 5–10, 13–14, 16–17, and 19–23
`Petitioner also contends that dependent claims 2–3, 5–10, 13–14, 16–
`17, and 19–23 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
`Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, and DHCP Protocol. Pet. 45–55. These
`dependent claims, however, incorporate all the limitations of the
`independent claims from which they depend. Petitioner’s arguments and
`evidence presented with respect to these dependent claims do not remedy the
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 1, 15, and 24
`discussed above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to dependent claims 2–3, 5–10, 13–
`14, 16–17, and 19–23 as obvious over the combined teachings of Gupta I,
`Gupta II, Parekh, and DHCP Protocol.
`
`D. Grounds 2–4
`Ground 2 challenges claims 4 and 18 as obvious over the combined
`teachings of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, DHCP Protocol, and Viikari. Pet.
`55–60. Ground 3 challenges claims 11 and 12 as obvious over the combined
`teachings of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, DHCP Protocol, and Short. Id. at
`60–62. Ground 4 challenges claims 1–24 as obvious over the combined
`teachings of Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, DHCP Protocol, Viikari, and Short.
`Id. at 62–65.
`With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, dependent claims 4, 11, 12, and 18
`incorporate all the limitations of the independent claims from which they
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`depend. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence presented with respect to these
`dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis of
`independent claims 1, 15, and 24 discussed above.
`With respect to Ground 4, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
`presented do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis of
`independent claims 1, 15, and 24 discussed above with respect to Ground 1.
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in its challenge to claims 1–24 as obvious over the teachings of
`Gupta I, Gupta II, Parekh, DHCP Protocol, Viikari, and Short as argued in
`Grounds 2–4.
`
` III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at
`least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable on any of the asserted
`grounds. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review with respect
`to any of the challenged claims of the ’594 patent.
`
` IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`the ’594 patent and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02046
`Patent 7,657,594 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jay I. Alexander
`Andrea G. Reister
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`jalexander@cov.com
`areister@cov.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lauren N. Robinson
`Craig Y. Allison
`BUNSOW DE MORY LLP
`lrobinson@bdiplaw.com
`callison@bdiplaw.com
`
`17
`
`
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
