Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00941
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`Issue Date: October 23, 2012
`
`Title: System and Method for Pushing Information to a Mobile Device
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,296,351 B2
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices under §42.8(A)(1) ........................................................... 1 
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1) ............................................. 1 
`B.
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 1 
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) .................................... 2 
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 3 
`Fee Payment .................................................................................................... 3 
`II.
`III. Requirements under §§ 42.104 and 42.108 and Considerations under
`§ 325(d) ........................................................................................................... 3 
`A. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 3 
`B.
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested ............................................................................................. 3 
`Considerations under §325(d) .............................................................. 4 
`C.
`IV. Overview of the ’351 Patent ........................................................................... 5 
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 5 
`B.
`Specification Overview ........................................................................ 5 
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 7 
`A.
`“channel” .............................................................................................. 7 
`B.
`“proxy content server”.......................................................................... 8 
`VI. The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ...................................................... 9 
`A. Overview of Grounds ........................................................................... 9 
`B.
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ............................. 10 
`
`Noble [Ex. 1003] ...................................................................... 10 
`
`Hassett [Ex. 1004] .................................................................... 13 
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 9, 14-15 and 21 Over Noble in View of
`Mann ................................................................................................... 20 
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 20 
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-i-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`“A system for pushing information to a mobile
`device, comprising:” (Preamble) ................................... 20 
`“a proxy content server that receives information
`over a computer network from an information
`source and stores the information to one of a
`plurality of channels based on pre-defined
`information categories, wherein the plurality of
`channels comprise memory locations included in at
`least one of the proxy content server or a proxy
`content server database;” (1[a]) ..................................... 23 
`“the proxy content server to receive a feedback
`signal over a wireless network that indicates a
`position of the mobile device, and to use the
`feedback signal to select a channel for
`transmission of the information from the selected
`channel over the wireless network to the mobile
`device,” (1[b]) ................................................................ 42 
`“wherein the information comprises at least one of
`static advertising information, dynamic advertising
`information, default advertising information, or
`content information, and wherein a combination of
`the static advertising information with one of the
`dynamic or default advertising information
`comprises an advertisement or an information
`bulletin.” (1[c]) .............................................................. 46 
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1, wherein the feedback
`signal is generated by the mobile device.” .............................. 50 
`Claim 9: “The system of claim 1, further comprising: the
`proxy content server database coupled to the proxy
`content server that stores data relating to the mobile
`device, wherein the data is also used by the proxy content
`server to select the channel for transmission over the
`wireless network to the mobile device.” .................................. 50 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 53 
`-ii-
` 
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Claim 15: “The system of claim 14, wherein the
`triggering event is a time.” ....................................................... 55 
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 56 
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, and 21 Over Noble in View
`of Mann and Johnson ......................................................................... 56 
`
`Additional Prior Art for Ground 2 ........................................... 56 
`(a) Mann [Ex. 1005] ............................................................ 56 
`(b)
`Johnson [Ex. 1006] ........................................................ 57 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 58 
`(a)
`“a proxy content server that receives information
`over a computer network from an information
`source and stores the information to one of a
`plurality of channels based on pre-defined
`information categories, wherein the plurality of
`channels comprise memory locations included in at
`least one of the proxy content server or a proxy
`content server database” (Claim 1[a]) ........................... 59 
`“the proxy content server to receive a feedback
`signal over a wireless network that indicates a
`position of the mobile device, and to use the
`feedback signal to select a channel for
`transmission of the information from the selected
`channel over the wireless network to the mobile
`device” (Claim 1[b]) ..................................................... 67 
`“wherein the information comprises at least one of
`static advertising information, dynamic advertising
`information, default advertising information, or
`content information, and wherein a combination of
`the static advertising information with one of the
`dynamic or default advertising information
`comprises an advertisement or an information
`bulletin.” (1[c]) ............................................................. 69 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 71 
`-iii-
` 
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`3.
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 71 
`4.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 72 
`5.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 73 
`6.
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 73 
`7.
`Grounds 3 and 4: Obviousness in Further View of De Boor ............ 73 
`E.
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 78 
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2 to Mihal Lazaridis et al. (filed Mar. 18,
`2010, issued Oct. 23, 2012) (“’351” or “’351 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. (“Chatterjee”)
`1003
`International Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/61559 A1 to David Noble
`et al. (filed Feb. 16, 2001, published Aug. 23, 2001) (“Noble”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,807,558 B1 to Gregory P. Hassett et al. (filed June 2,
`1998, issuing October 19, 2004) (“Hassett”)
`1005 Excerpts from Anthony T. Mann, Microsoft SQL Server 7 for
`Dummies (1998) (“Mann”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,456,234 B1 to William J. Johnson (filed Jun. 7,
`2000, issued Sep. 24, 2002) (“Johnson”)
`
`1007
`
`International Patent App. Pub. No. WO 99/59283 to Adam De Boor et
`al. (filed May 7, 1999, published November 18, 1999) (“De Boor”)
`1008 Reserved
`1009 Todd Spangler, The Intranet Channel, PC Magazine, pp.156-180 (June
`10, 1997)
`1010 Kevin Kelly, Push!, Wired Magazine, March 1997
`https://web.archive.org/web/19991013012158/http://www.wired.com/
`wired/archive/5.03/ff_push_pr.html
`1011 Castedo Ellerman, Microsoft Corporation, Channel Definition Format
`(CDF), March 10, 1997.
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970731002642/https://www.w3.org/TR
`/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
`
`‐i‐ 
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,449,638 B1 to Dave Wecker et al. (filed June 30,
`1998, issuing September 10, 2002) (“Wecker”)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,879,838 B2 to Paul John Rankin et al. (filed April
`20, 2001, issuing April 12, 2005)
`1014 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`1015 Excerpts from Dictionary of Computer and Internet Words (2001)
`1016 Excerpts from Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
`1017 Excerpts from Robert Cowart et al., Special Edition Using Microsoft
`Windows XP Professional (3rd ed.) (2005) (“Cowart”)
`1018 Excerpts from Rafe Colburn, Special Edition Using SQL (2000)
`(“Colburn”)
`1019 U.S. Patent App. No. 09/507,774 (filed Feb. 18, 2000), the parent
`patent application to Ex. 1003 (“Noble Priority App.”)
`1020 Redline comparison showing differences between International Patent
`App. Pub. No. WO 01/61559 A1 to David Noble (Ex. 1003) against
`U.S. Patent App. No. 09/507,774 (Ex. 1019)
`1021 Certificates of Service from BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et
`al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), ECF Nos. 20-23, showing
`that service on Petitioners was effected on April 6, 2018
`
`1022
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement from BlackBerry
`Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D.
`Cal.), ECF No. 15, filed on April 4, 2018
`1023 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. (“Hall-Ellis”)
`
`‐ii‐ 
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1024
`
`Description of Document
`Final Ruling on Claim Construction in BlackBerry Limited v.
`Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), filed
`April 5, 2019
`1025 Elizabeth Cowley, Primacy Effects: When First Learned is Best
`Recalled, 4 Eur. Advances in Consumer R. 155, 155 (1999)
`
`‐iii‐ 
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1)
`Facebook, Inc. and subsidiaries Instagram, LLC and WhatsApp Inc., are the
`
`real parties-in-interest to this IPR petition. For ease of reference, this Petition will
`
`refer to Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp collectively as “Petitioner” (singular).
`
`B. Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2)
`The ’351 patent is the subject of pending litigation involving Petitioner:
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D.
`
`Cal.). The ’351 patent is also the subject of two other pending litigations: (1)
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.) (filed
`
`April 3, 2018), and (2) BlackBerry Ltd. v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-
`
`GW-KS (C.D. Cal.) (filed February 27, 2019). The district court issued its final
`
`claim construction ruling on April 5, 2019, the date of filing of this Petition. (Ex.
`
`1024.) No trial date has been set.
`
`Petitioner was first served on April 6, 2018. (Ex. 1021.)1 The First Amended
`
`
`1 The initial Complaint in that action was filed on March 6, 2018, which did not
`
`assert the ’351 patent. Patent Owner filed a First Amended Complaint on April 4,
`
`2018, which added the ’351 patent. Service on Petitioner first took place on April
`
`6, 2018, after the filing of the First Amended Complaint. (Ex. 1021.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`-1-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`Complaint in that action alleges that Facebook and Instagram infringe the ’351
`
`patent. (Ex. 1022, ¶¶312-319.)
`
`The ’351 patent is also the subject of IPR2019-00830, filed March 25, 2019
`
`by Snap Inc., which challenges claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14-18, 20-21, and 23.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5287
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Yuan Liang (Admission pro hac vice to
`be requested)
`yliang@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`-2-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 728-7132
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`D.
`Service Information
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`
`
`the ’351 patent, BlackBerry Limited (Schwegman), Patent Team, 2200 University
`
`Avenue East, Waterloo ON N2K 0A7. Petitioner consents to electronic service at
`
`the addresses provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`Petitioner requests review of six claims, with a $30,500 payment.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 AND CONSIDERATIONS UNDER
`§ 325(D)
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’351 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner requests institution of IPR based on:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Challenge under §103(a)
`Claims
`1-2, 9, 14-15, 21 Noble (Ex. 1003) and Hassett (Ex. 1004)
`
` 
`
`
`
`-3-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`Ground
`2
`
`Challenge under §103(a)
`Claims
`1-2, 9, 14-15, 21 Noble, Mann (Ex. 1005), and Johnson (Ex. 1006)
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-2, 9, 14-15, 21 Noble, Hassett, and De Boor (Ex. 1007)
`
`1-2, 9, 14-15, 21 Noble, Mann, Johnson, and De Boor
`
`Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1002) (“Chatterjee”), a qualified technical expert. (Chatterjee, ¶¶1-8, Ex. A.)
`
`C. Considerations under §325(d)
`This Petition does not present a scenario in which “the same or substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” §325(d).
`
`With the exception of Hassett (Ex. 1004), cited in Grounds 1 and 3, the prior art cited
`
`in this Petition was not cited during prosecution of the ’351 patent.
`
`Hassett was listed on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) on July 17,
`
`2012, but was not the subject of any Office Action and was not substantively
`
`discussed by the applicants or the Examiner. See, e.g., Digital Check Corp. d/b/a ST
`
`Imaging v. E-Imagedata Corp., IPR2017-00178, Paper 6 at 12-13 (P.T.A.B. April
`
`25, 2017) (rejecting §325(d) argument based on references cited on an IDS because
`
`“there is no indication in the record that the Examiner rejected any claims based on
`
`either reference or that the Examiner or applicant substantively discussed either
`
`reference during prosecution of the [challenged] patent”). Moreover, this Petition
`
`cites Hassett as a secondary reference for Grounds 1 and 3 with respect to the “proxy
`
` 
`
`
`
`-4-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`content server” limitations in claims 1 and 14. The primary reference, Noble (Ex.
`
`1003), was not cited during prosecution.
`
`Additionally, none of the prior art cited in this Petition is cited or discussed
`
`anywhere in the IPR petition filed by Snap, Inc. (IPR2019-00830).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’351 PATENT
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 2001 (the earliest patent priority
`
`date) would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in software engineering,
`
`computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two
`
`years of experience in software application development, including experience in
`
`developing software and systems for storing, retrieving, and transmitting displayable
`
`information (such as text and images) over a computer network to another device (or
`
`equivalent degree or experience). (Chatterjee, ¶¶11-14.)
`
`B.
`Specification Overview
`The ’351 patent states that it “relates to pushing information to a mobile
`
`handheld communication device.” (’351, 1:18-19.) By the time the earliest
`
`application for the ’351 patent was filed in July 2001, push technology was already
`
`mature and well-developed. (Chatterjee, ¶¶21-32, 34.) The patent acknowledges
`
`that “[s]ystems for transmitting information from databases in a computer network,
`
`such as World-Wide-Web (WWW) servers on the Internet, over a wireless network
`
` 
`
`
`
`-5-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`to a mobile device are known.” (’351, 1:32-35.)
`
`Figure 1 (reproduced below) provides “a block diagram of an exemplary
`
`system for pushing information to a mobile device” (’351, 1:61-62):
`
`
`(’351, Fig. 1.)2 Referring to Figure 1, the ’351 patent states that Proxy Content
`
`
`
`Server 18 receives information from various Information Sources 10 over Internet
`
`16 and provides the information to mobile devices 24. (’351, 2:21-27, 2:57-63.) The
`
`
`2 Unless noted otherwise, all annotation and emphasis has been added by Petitioner.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-6-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`information may include “stock prices, flight information, banking information,”
`
`among others, and advertising such as “coupon deals, timed sales events, brand
`
`recognition ads, company ads, testimonials, product placement ads.” (’351, 2:34-
`
`45.) “As information 12 from an Information Sources 10 is received by the Proxy
`
`Content Server 18, the information is collected into channels or categories 21.”
`
`(’351, 3:58-60.) The ’351 patent states that the channels 21 may be “memory
`
`locations” on Proxy Content Server 18, database 19, and other memory devices
`
`associated with Proxy Content Server 18. (’351, 3:60-65.)
`
`The ’351 patent further states that “a mobile device user may be able to control
`
`the information pushed to the mobile device 24 based on the geographical location
`
`of the device 24, based on certain triggering events, or based on some other pre-
`
`selected criteria.” (’351, 4:39-43.) For example, Proxy Content Server 18 may use
`
`the geographical location of device 24 to determine what information to provide to
`
`the device. (’351, 4:58-67, Fig. 7.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“channel”
`The parties in the underlying litigation stipulated that “channel” refers to a
`
`“memory location.” (Ex. 1024, p.11.) Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board adopt this construction in light of the parties’ agreement and because it is
`
`consistent with the intrinsic record. The parties’ construction flows directly from
`
` 
`
`
`
`-7-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`the claim language itself, which explains that “the plurality of channels comprise
`
`memory locations included in at least one of the proxy content server or a proxy
`
`content server database.” (’351, Claims 1 & 14.) This statement is also echoed in
`
`the ’351 specification. (’351, 3:60-64 (“The channels 21 may be memory locations
`
`on the Proxy Content Server 18….”).)
`
`B.
`“proxy content server”
`Both independent claims recite this term. Petitioner identifies this term
`
`because it was the subject of a dispute in the pending litigation, but respectfully
`
`submits that the Board need not construe it for purposes of applying the prior art.
`
`In the underlying litigation, Petitioner proposed that this term be construed as
`
`a “server that receives information over a computer network and provides it to
`
`another device,” whereas Patent Owner proposed a “server that aggregates
`
`information from an information source for distribution to a device.” (Ex. 1024,
`
`p.12.) The district court determined that this phrase does not require construction.
`
`(Id., p.14.) The district court reasoned that the claims “provide extensive
`
`information about the claimed proxy content server and how it functions and/or
`
`interacts with other components of the claimed system.” (Id.)
`
`For purposes of this Petition, it does not matter if the Board adopts the
`
`proposed construction offered by Petitioner, Patent Owner, or resorts to the plain
`
`language as suggested by the district court. As demonstrated below, the prior art
`
` 
`
`
`
`-8-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`discloses the claimed proxy content server under any of those views.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Overview of Grounds
`All four grounds presented in this Petition rely primarily on Noble (Ex. 1003),
`
`which describes a push-based system for delivering promotional information to a
`
`wireless mobile device. Noble discloses a server that can collect promotional
`
`information from merchants and deliver it to mobile devices based on their current
`
`location or time-triggered events.
`
`The challenged claims recite only one limitation that Noble arguably does not
`
`fully address – the storage of information “to one of a plurality of channels based
`
`on pre-defined information categories,” as recited in claims 1 and 14. Because
`
`Noble takes database storage of promotional information for granted, it does not
`
`provide details about how its information is internally organized.
`
`This Petition provides two approaches for exposing the obviousness of this
`
`claimed feature and the claims as a whole. Ground 1 cites Noble in combination
`
`with Hassett (Ex. 1004), which describes an earlier push-based delivery system
`
`similar in many respects to Noble but containing a robust description of category-
`
`based storage. Hassett discloses the precise type of storage recited in the claims, and
`
`in combination with Noble, renders all challenged claims obvious. Ground 2
`
`substitutes Hassett for Mann (Ex. 1005) and Johnson (Ex. 1006), which describe
`
` 
`
`
`
`-9-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`well-known database technologies and their use for storing promotional information,
`
`respectively. Ground 2 establishes that the category-based storage recited in the
`
`challenged claims amounts to nothing more than an obvious application of pervasive
`
`and off-the-shelf relational database techniques.
`
`Grounds 3 and 4 are based on Grounds 1 and 2, but add De Boor (Ex. 1007)
`
`to account for a potentially narrow interpretation of the final clause of claims 1 and
`
`14. Grounds 3 and 4 are otherwise the same as Grounds 1 and 2, respectively.
`
`B.
`
`Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art
`
`Noble [Ex. 1003]
`Noble describes a system for pushing promotional information to wireless
`
`mobile devices. (Noble, e.g., 4:23-5:2.) Noble qualifies as prior art under §102(e)(2)
`
`because it is a published PCT application filed on February 16, 2001,3 prior to the
`
`
`3 Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e)(2) (pre-AIA), an international application filed under the
`
`Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) “shall have the effects for the purposes of this
`
`subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international
`
`application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of
`
`[the Patent Cooperation Treaty] in the English language.” Noble meets these
`
`requirements. Its face page lists the United States as a designated state and was
`
`published in English on August 23, 2001, approximately 18 months after the filing
`
` 
`
`
`
`-10-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`priority date of the ’315 patent. Although the PCT filing date is sufficient to pre-date
`
`the ’315 patent priority date, Petitioner notes that Noble claims priority to U.S.
`
`Patent Application Ser. No. 09/507,774, filed on February 18, 2000. (See Ex. 1019.)4
`
`Figure 2 provides a diagrammatic overview of the system:
`
`
`of its priority application, as required by Article 21(2). (Ex. 1003 at 001 (Face
`
`
`
`Page).)
`
`4 Because Noble and its earlier priority application share substantially identical
`
`disclosures (as demonstrated by the redline attached as Exhibit 1020), Noble is
`
`entitled to a §102(e) date of February 2, 2000. See 35 U.S.C. §120. Petitioner is
`
`unaware of any basis for the Patent Owner to attempt to “swear behind” Noble, but
`
`in the event it attempted to do so, it would need to antedate February 2, 2000.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-11-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`(Noble, Fig. 2.)
`
`
` Noble explains
`
`that
`
`its “promotional
`
`information
`
`delivery/redemption system 200” of Figure 2 comprises a server 201 connected via
`
`a wide area network (WAN) 203 (such as the Internet) to on-line merchant 204
`
`computer system. (Noble, 8:12-20, 2:18.) A wireless communication network 210
`
`links mobile devices (“MU”), such as cellular phones 212a-212c, personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA) 213 and a portable computer 214 to server 201. (Noble, 8:21-9:5,
`
`9:7-12, 9:19-23.)
`
`The system server in Noble (e.g., server 201) receives promotional material—
`
`such as “discount coupons, gift certificates, and advertisement material”—from an
`
`online merchant computer system via the computer network. (Noble, 8:12-20, 2:18,
`
`10:16-19, 12:10-14, 27:10-12.) As shown below, the server in Noble corresponds
`
`to the “proxy content server” of the challenged claims.
`
`The server in Noble automatically transmits (i.e., “pushes”) promotional
`
`information to mobile devices based on user-specified “triggering events” or “event
`
`based triggers.” (Noble, 4:22-5:2, 15:17-20, 19:12-19, 17:1-7 (“The server 507a
`
`monitors for an occurrence of any of the triggering events 503a, and upon such
`
`occurrence 503a, initiates a ‘push’ of promotional information selected based on the
`
`user profile 508a.”).) One type of trigger as a “location/favorite event trigger.”
`
`(Noble, 24:3-4.) With this type of trigger, the user’s mobile device generates and
`
` 
`
`
`
`-12-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`transmits location updates to the server. (Noble, 16:13-16, 17:1-3, 17:12-22, 18:4-
`
`9, 19:12-19, Fig. 5b.) When the server detects that the mobile device user “comes
`
`within a vicinity of merchants previously identified by the user as his/her favorite,”
`
`a “location/favorite event may occur,” causing the server to transmit associated
`
`promotional information to the device. (Noble, 24:4-6, 17:1-5.)
`
` Hassett [Ex. 1004]
`Hassett, entitled “Utilization of Information ‘Push’ Technology,” describes a
`
`variety of techniques for distributing information to user computers on a network.
`
`(Hassett, Abstract.) Hassett qualifies as prior art under §102(e).
`
`Hassett explains that “[p]ush networks have been with us for several years.”
`
`(Hassett, 1:34.) Hassett was originally assigned to PointCast, Inc., one of the earliest
`
`developers of push technology.5 (Chatterjee, ¶¶22, 25.)
`
`Hassett describes a push delivery system similar in many respects to what was
`
`later claimed in the ’351 patent. According to Hassett:
`
`One embodiment of the present invention comprises a computer-
`implemented method for distributing information to a plurality of client
`devices on a network, the computer-implemented method comprising
`receiving a variety of information from a plurality of sources,
`organizing the variety of information into information categories, and
`distributing the variety of information to the plurality of client devices
`
`5 Hassett has since been assigned to Petitioner Facebook, Inc.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-13-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0021
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`based on the information categories requested by the plurality of client
`devices.
`
`(Hassett, 17:60-18:1; see also id., 3:7-15.)
`
`Figure 1A shows an information and advertising distribution system 100 that
`
`includes a LAN server 108 that sits between client computers 102 and an information
`
`server 104:
`
` 
`
`
`
`-14-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0022
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`
`(Hassett, Fig 1A.) Hassett explains “[r]eferring to FIG. 1A, there is shown a
`
`computer based information and advertising distribution system 100 having many
`
`client computers 102 and at least one information server computer 104.” (Hassett,
`
`5:23-26.) Hassett refers to a client computer synonymously as a “subscriber
`
`computer” or a “subscriber workstation.” (Hassett, 5:26-30.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`-15-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0023
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`The top-left of Figure 1A shows client
`
`computers 102 connected to information server
`
`104 through “Internet Interconnectivity 119,”
`
`whereas the client computers on the right (in
`
`green) are connected through an intermediate LAN server 108 (in yellow). (Hassett,
`
`5:30-32.) Petitioner will rely on this latter embodiment.
`
`Figure 2 further shows how LAN server 108 includes an information database
`
`storing news items, advertisements, images, and other information:
`
` 
`
`
`
`-16-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0024
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`
`(Hassett, Fig. 2.) Hassett explains that in the embodiment in which “subscribers’
`
`workstations [are] connected to the information server 104 via a LAN server 108,
`
`FIG. 2 is representative of the LAN server” (Hassett, 7:57-62). A key portion of
`
`Figure 2 is the information database 184 highlighted in yellow. Information
`
`database 184 “includes news stories 183, advertisements 188, images 190 and
`
` 
`
`
`
`-17-
`
` 
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1022
`Page 0025
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`display scripts 192. In each case the workstation’s [or LAN server’s] secondary
`
`memory stores at least a subset of the corresponding items stored in the information
`
`server 104.” (Hassett, 8:16-21.)
`
`The data access tables 186 also shown as part of information database 184