Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Date: January 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FEDEX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FLECTERE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Date: January 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FEDEX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FLECTERE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. McKONE, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Case Posture
`FedEx Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,415,284 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’284 patent”). Flectere LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) waived filing of a preliminary response to the Petition. Paper 7.
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’284 patent on all
`grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 8 (“Institution
`Decision” or “Dec.”).
`After institution, on September 16, 2020, Patent Owner informed the
`Board that it “has elected to not file a response” to the Petition. Ex. 3001.
`On September 24, 2020, pursuant to Section II.F of the Board’s
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 and the Scheduling Order in this case
`(Paper 9, 10), the Board held a teleconference with the parties to discuss the
`posture of this case and revision of due dates originally set in the Scheduling
`Order. See Paper 10. During the call, Patent Owner stated that it did not
`intend to request adverse judgment (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) (2019)), to
`cancel any challenged claims, or to otherwise abandon the contest.
`Paper 10, 2. Also during the call, we cautioned Patent Owner that “any
`arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 9, 10;
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be
`considered admitted.”); In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379–82 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (holding arguments of patent owner may be waived when not
`included in a preliminary response and response permitted during trial); see
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`also Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`924 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding patent owner forfeited
`argument for patentability not presented to the Board); Bradium Techs. LLC
`v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that arguments
`not presented to the Board are waived). Because Patent Owner elected to
`not file a response to the Petition, had not otherwise raised any issue in any
`paper filed in this case, and had not requested oral hearing in this case, on
`October 28, 2020, we ordered that this case would advance to final written
`decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) on the present record. Paper 14.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. The evidentiary standard is
`a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–21 of the
`’284 patent are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’284 patent was involved in three U.S.
`district court actions, namely, Flectere LLC v. Academy, Ltd., 2:18-cv-00227
`(E.D. Tex.) (dismissed Dec. 4, 2018); Flectere LLC v. Sears Brands, LLC,
`2:18-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.) (dismissed Dec. 4, 2018); and Flectere LLC v.
`Staples, Inc., 2:18-cv-00229 (E.D. Tex.) (dismissed Sept. 24, 2018).
`Pet. 69–70. Patent Owner indicates that there is no judicial or administrative
`matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`Petitioner also indicates that the ’284 patent was involved in Unified
`Patents Inc. v. Flectere LLC, IPR2019-00479 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2018), in
`which the Board denied institution. Pet. 69–70.
`We also note that Petitioner (FedEx) and Patent Owner (Flectere) are
`the petitioner and patent owner, respectively, in IPR2020-00400 (involving
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,094 B1) and IPR2020-00402 (involving U.S. Patent
`No. 6,272,506 B1), in which the Board instituted inter partes reviews.
`These two cases remain pending.
`
`C. The ’284 Patent
`The ’284 patent is titled “Intelligent Forms for Improved Automated
`Workflow Processing,” and issued on July 2, 2002, from U.S. Application
`No. 09/344,269, filed June 30, 1999. Ex. 1001, codes (10), (21), (22), (45),
`(54).
`
`The ’284 patent generally relates to intelligent or “smart” forms for
`improved automated workflow processing. Ex. 1001, Abstract. More
`specifically, the ’284 patent is directed to:
`[I]ntelligent forms [that] are intelligently pre-populated using a
`business database and include logic for verification of properly
`supplied data to minimize effort in filling in such forms and to
`minimize the risk of accepting invalid form data, thus reducing
`the system’s susceptibility to error.
`Ex. 1001, 2:20–26. Figure 1 of the ’284 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of computer system 100 for
`processing insurance applications that implements smart
`forms for workflow improvement.
`Id. at 1:65–67, 2:26–28, Fig. 1.
`
`As depicted in Figure 1, a “number of computers 102A–C are coupled
`through a wide area network 106, such as the Internet, to a scalable network
`server 108.” Ex. 1001, 2:33–35. Scalable network server 108 “routes data
`between computers 102A–C on one end and applications 110A–D on the
`other end.” Id. at 2:44–46. “Applications 110A–D access data in a
`database 116 through an applications programming interface (API) 114.” Id.
`at 2:47–48. Applications 110A–D perform a number of business functions,
`such as “payroll, accounting, benefits administration, and inter-office
`communications such as e-mail.” Id. at 2:49–53.
`
`According to the ’284 patent, applications 110A–D implement
`“workflows,” which include a number of actions to be taken by applications
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`110A–D in carrying out tasks that typically include interaction with users,
`such as employees. Ex. 1001, 2:61–3:2. Workflows include “smart
`form[s]” having a number of fields, “each of which corresponds to a
`particular piece of information which is used in carrying out the task of
`workflow.” Id. at 3:3–9. Fields include, as relevant to this Petition, “default
`annotation[s]” and “verification annotation[s].” Id. at 3:14–15. These
`annotations are “logic which can include references to data contained in
`records in database 116.” Id. at 3:35–36.
`A default annotation includes logic that “specifies a default data
`value” for a field, and can include “references to data contained in
`database 116.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–41. For example, according to the
`’284 patent, if a field corresponds to an employee’s name, the default
`annotation can specify that the employee’s name is retrieved from
`database 116. Id. at 3:41–44. A verification annotation includes logic that
`“processes data entered by an employee and indicates whether the entered
`data is valid,” and may include “references to data stored in database 116.”
`Id. at 3:57–60. For example, according to the ’284 patent, if a field
`represents a number of vacation days requested by an employee, the
`verification logic may include logic that compares the requested vacation to
`the number of days of vacation available to the employee. Id. at 3:60–64.
`
`According to the ’284 patent, a default annotation typically is
`executed within application 110A, for example, because application 110A is
`close to database 116, at least relative to computers 102A–C, and therefore
`can quickly and efficiently resolve (i.e., replace) references to data in default
`annotation with actual data values retrieved from database 116. Ex. 1001,
`4:1–6. For verification annotation, “application 110A resolves references to
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`data items stored in database 116 by substituting the substantive data values
`for such data items for such references within [the] verification annotation.”
`Id. at 4:14–17; see id. at 5:32–36 (application 110A resolves verification
`annotation “such that all references to data items of database 116 . . . are
`replaced with data values retrieved from database 116, such that subsequent
`access to database 116 by computer 102A is unnecessary”). As a result, a
`verification annotation, when received by computer 102A, for example,
`“includes no references to data items within database 116 but data constants
`where such references had been,” and “is then executed within [remote]
`computer 102A.” Id. at 4:17–23. By resolving the verification annotation in
`this manner, remote computer 102A itself can verify data entered by the
`user, without having to send the data or form containing the data back to
`host applications 110A–D for verification (and if data are determined invalid
`by host applications 110A–D, then back again to remote computer 102A for
`reentry, and so forth). See id. at 4:6–50. According to the ’284 patent, this
`“minimize[s] the risk of accepting invalid form data, thus reducing the
`system’s susceptibility to error,” and helps reduce traffic congestion on wide
`area network 106. Id. at 2:20–26, 4:12–13.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`The ’284 patent includes 21 claims, all of which are challenged.
`Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative and
`reproduced below.
`1.
`A method for using a data-entry form to receive data
`entered by a user, the method comprising:
`including one or more fields in the data-entry form;
`for each of the one or more fields,
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`including verification logic which, when executed,
`determines whether form data entered by the user is valid
`for the field; and
`sending the data-entry form with the verification logic
`through a computer network to a remote computer for entry of
`the data by the user such that the remote computer receives the
`data entered by the user and executes the verification logic.
`Ex. 1001, 11:22–33.
`
`E. Applied References
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Xue, U.S. Patent No. 5,956,709 (Ex. 1002, “Xue”), filed
`July 28, 1997, issued September 21, 1999.
`Blinn et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,897,622 (Ex. 1003,
`“Blinn”), filed October 16, 1996, issued April 27, 1999.
`Wolff et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,774,887 (Ex. 1004,
`“Wolff”), filed November 18, 1992, issued June 30, 1998.
`Gupta et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,199,079 B1 (Ex. 1005,
`“Gupta”), filed March 20, 1998, issued March 6, 2001.
`Pet. 1–2.
`
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`F.
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’284 patent on
`the following grounds. Dec. 2–3, 8, 26.
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1, 8, 15
`1022
`1, 8, 15
`103
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because
`the ’284 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the
`relevant amendments, the pre-AIA versions of § 102 and § 103 apply.
`8
`
`Reference(s)
`Xue
`Xue
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`35 U.S.C. §
`Claims Challenged
`Xue, Blinn
`103
`1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16
`Xue, Blinn, Gupta
`103
`3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20
`Xue, Blinn
`103
`4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21
`Xue, Blinn, Wolff
`103
`4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21
`Petitioner relies upon the Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Applicable Law
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the
`’284 patent on the grounds that the claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of various references
`including: Xue, Blinn, Gupta, and Wolff. To prevail in its challenges to the
`patentability of the claims, Petitioner must establish unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to
`show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to
`identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d
`1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter
`partes review).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`To serve as an anticipatory reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “the
`reference must disclose each and every element of the claimed invention,
`whether it does so explicitly or inherently.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The identical invention must be shown in as
`complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
`Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).
`The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, “but this is not an
`‘ipsissimis verbis’ test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re
`Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United
`States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when of record, objective evidence of
`non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Secondary considerations may include the
`following: “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of
`others, etc.”3 Id. The totality of the evidence submitted may show that the
`
`
`3 Patent Owner did not present any evidence or arguments directed to
`secondary considerations during this proceeding.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`challenged claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When
`evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also “determine whether
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. Id. at 415. Whether a
`patent claiming a combination of prior art elements would have been
`obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`Id. at 417. To reach this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere
`showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each
`separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v.
`Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness
`requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of
`the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in
`the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed
`invention. Id. “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner
`cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead
`articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the
`legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
`of the effective filing date of the ’284 patent, “would have had a minimum
`of a bachelor’s degree in computer science or an equivalent field, and
`approximately two years of industrial or academic experience designing user
`interfaces or data entry forms.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 57–59). Patent
`Owner makes no contention concerning the artisan’s skill level. We regard
`Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and consistent with the prior
`art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in
`concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by
`the references of record). Accordingly, as in our Institution Decision, we
`apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with
`Dr. Bederson’s testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 57–59), except that we delete the
`qualifier “a minimum of” to eliminate possible vagueness as to the amount
`of formal education. The qualifier expands the range substantially without
`an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary
`and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and
`customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention.” Id. at 1313. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
`the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
`history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d
`at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1317. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes
`review).
`Petitioner submits that the claim limitations in the ’284 patent should
`be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but also proposes certain
`constructions in the alternative. Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner, having elected to
`not file a response after institution, has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed
`constructions. In determining that Petitioner has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–21 of the ’284 patent are
`unpatentable, we need not and do not construe expressly any claim terms.
`
`D. Anticipation of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
`by Xue (Ex. 1002)
`Petitioner contends independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Xue (Ex. 1002). Pet. 18–36. For
`the reasons expressed below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated
`by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1, 8, and 15 are unpatentable as
`anticipated by Xue.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`1. Overview of Xue (Ex. 1002)
`Xue relates generally to a method of “assembl[ing] data into a data
`set, such as [an] item list in an Internet shopping cart, on [a] client side that
`is necessary for a transaction between two parties on the Internet server side
`and client side,” as shown, for example, in Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a client side shopping cart with
`selected items in the shopping cart.
`Ex. 1002, Abstract, 3:22–25, Fig. 2; see id. at 1:11–13 (naming the method
`“Dynamic Data Assembling On Internet Client Side (DDAICS)”), 3:46–57
`(defining “[t]ransaction,” “[s]erver party,” and “[c]lient party”). Xue
`discloses a client (e.g., user) receiving an “Internet Client Side Shopping
`Cart” as a web page with embedded script language, such as JavaScript,
`which is executed using a “client side application program.” Ex. 1002,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`Abstract. This enables editing operations such as “adding, deleting,
`updating, entry check, calculation, and backup, [to be] executed on [the]
`client side.” Id. Xue further explains:
`In FIG. 2 and FIG 3, two items have been selected and dropped
`into the shopping cart. The default quantity for items is one, but
`a shopper can change that at any time by focusing on the quantity
`cell [i.e., field] and typing in a new number in the shopping cart.
`The shopper can also type in the tax rate if applicable into the tax
`rate cell. The total prices, subtotal, tax, and grand total are
`calculated automatically by client side application program.
`After finishing shopping, shoppers can put user ID and password
`in the shopping cart and submit the order by clicking on the
`button “Send This Order”. If a shopper [has] not registered, by
`clicking on the “Registration” button on the Control Panel, a
`registration form will show up in the Display Window. After
`registration, the shopper can submit the order.
`Id. at 7:20–34; see id. at Figs. 2–3.
`
`In operation, “[a] top file and the web pages associated with each
`f[r]ame of the window are downloaded by a user with a browser, such as
`Netscape Navigator 3.0,” and the “client side application program of
`JavaScript is compiled by the buil[t]-in JavaScript compiler of the browser.”
`Ex. 1002, 8:37–55; see id. at 4:7–20. Xue discloses that logic in the top file
`“check[s] entries automatically” to determine whether data entered are valid
`for a given cell or field. Id. at 4:53–55, 16:47–52, 17:7–18:15. According to
`Xue, many “functions [can] be embedded in the top file in any order” (id.
`at 18:7–8), such as a “function to check if the input is a valid number” (id.
`at cols. 17–18 (see programming code)), and a function for “[c]hecking [a]
`user’s ID and password” (id. at cols. 19–20 (see programming code
`(“function isValidIDPasswd”))). Once data entry and checking are
`completed on the client, the client sends the completed shopping cart data
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`back to the server in one transmission. Id. at 1:47–63 (“only one
`transmission is enough”), 2:21–65, 3:52–58, 16:67–17:1.
`
`Xue teaches that its method “eliminate[s] unnecessary transmissions
`of useful data by implementing all edit operations, such as adding, deleting,
`updating, entry check, calculation, and backup on [the] client side in a data
`assembling process,” and as such, “transmissions of useless data will be
`reduced to minimum if [the] data checking mechanism is well designed.”
`Ex. 1002, 2:48–54. Xue explains: “the Internet information traffic will be
`reduced significantly if this method is widely used, and Internet traffic will
`speed up as a result of reduction of Internet traffic,” the “load on servers will
`be reduced significantly,” and consequently, the “result is that the scarce
`Internet resources will be used more effectively and efficiently.” Id. at
`2:54–60.
`
`Petitioner contends Xue qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`based on its filing date. Pet. 1. We have no evidence of an invention date
`other than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims.
`Thus, we determine that Xue qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`because Xue’s filing date of July 28, 1997, is before the earliest possible
`effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is June 30, 1999.
`Ex. 1001, code (22); Ex. 1002, code (22).
`
`We further discuss below the disclosure of Xue in connection with
`Petitioner’s arguments. As noted above, Patent Owner has presented no
`arguments undermining the arguments presented in the Petition.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`2. Analysis
`a)
`Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner contends Xue discloses all of the limitations of independent
`claim 1. Pet. 18–36.
`
`“A method for using a data-entry form to
`(1)
`receive data entered by a user, the method
`comprising:”
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a “method for using a data-entry form
`to receive data entered by a user.” Ex. 1001, 11:22–34. Petitioner cites
`Xue’s disclosure of an Internet (online) shopping cart to receive data entered
`by a shopper via various cells, including cells for receiving item quantity,
`tax rate, username, and password. Pet. 18–24 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1002,
`7:20–34, Figs. 2, 3, 6, Abstract; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 70–74). Petitioner does not
`take a position as to whether the preamble is limiting. See id. at 18.
`Because we find that Petitioner’s cited disclosure from Xue discloses a
`“method for using a data-entry form to receive data entered by a user,” we
`need not determine whether the preamble is limiting. See Nidec, 868 F.3d
`at 1017.
`
`“including one or more fields in the data-
`(2)
`entry form;”
`Xue discloses “cells” or “fields” in an Internet shopping cart
`implemented using HTML and JavaScript that enable a shopper (or user) to
`enter information. Ex. 1002, 7:20–34, Figs. 2, 3, 6, Abstract; see, e.g., id.
`at 8:55–67 (providing a JavaScript function that “focus[es] on the quantity
`field of that item in the cart” (emphasis added)), 18:17–67 (“Please enter a
`number into the field!” (emphasis added)), Fig. 2 (“Type the tax rate into the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`field below.” (emphasis added)), Fig. 3 (providing user ID and password
`fields), 7:20–34 (“[A] shopper can change that at any time by focusing on
`the quantity cell and typing in a new number in the shopping cart.”
`(emphasis added)), 13:21–35 (“The new values in the text cells of the
`shopping cart can be written by the client side application program without
`causing the whole file of the web page for the shopping cart to be rewritten.”
`(emphasis added)). Based on this evidence, Petitioner contends, and we
`find, that such description discloses “including one or more fields in the
`data-entry form,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 75).
`
`“for each of the one or more fields,
`(3)
`including verification logic which, when executed,
`determines whether form data entered by the user
`is valid for the field; and”
`Xue discloses Internet shopping cart fields having logic to perform
`“entry check[s]” of entries made by the user before “final submission, save,
`or print.” Ex. 1002, Abstract, 2:37–47; see, e.g., id. at 2:48–59
`(“[T]ransmissions of useless data will be reduced to minimum if data
`checking mechanism is well designed.”), 4:53–55 (describing manual entry
`of data and “checking entries automatically”), 16:47–59 (“If an illegal
`character is entered, an alert will be shown up on screen to remind users to
`change to the legal character sets.”). Xue also discloses implementing such
`logic for validating field entries using JavaScript. Id. at 17:13–18:15,
`cols. 17–24 (exemplary JavaScript code for field logic). Based on this
`evidence, Petitioner contends, and we find, that such description discloses
`“for each of the one or more fields, including verification logic which, when
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`executed, determines whether form data entered by the user is valid for the
`field,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 25–29 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76–81).
`
`“sending the data-entry form with the
`(4)
`verification logic through a computer network to a
`remote computer”
`Xue discloses a client (e.g., user) receiving an “Internet Client Side
`Shopping Cart” as a web page with embedded script language, such as
`JavaScript, which is executed using a “client side application program.”
`Ex. 1002, Abstract. This enables editing operations such as “adding,
`deleting, updating, entry check, calculation, and backup, [to be] executed on
`[the] client side.” Id. Xue also discloses “[a] top file and the web pages
`associated with each f[r]ame of the window are downloaded by a user with a
`browser, such as Netscape Navigator 3.0,” and the “client side application
`program of JavaScript is compiled by the buil[t]-in JavaScript compiler of
`the browser.” Ex. 1002, 8:37–55 (emphasis added); see id. at 4:7–20.
`Petitioner submits that “by downloading a form from the [I]nternet, a server
`sends the form over a computer network to a remote computer.” Pet. 30
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 82–83); see also Ex. 1002, 3:46–57 (defining
`“[t]ransaction,” “[s]erver party,” and “[c]lient party”). Based on this
`evidence, Petitioner contends, and we find, that such description discloses
`“sending the data-entry form with the verification logic through a computer
`network to a remote computer,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 29–34 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 82–90).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`“for entry of the data by the user such that
`(5)
`the remote computer receives the data entered by
`the user and executes the verification logic.”
`Xue discloses, as discussed above, a shopper (user) entering data into
`an Internet shopping cart on a client side (remote) computer, which client
`side computer also performs “entry check[s]” of entries made by the user
`before “final submission, save, or print.” See supra; see also, e.g., Ex. 1002,
`2:32–45 (“Web pages used in the method are specifically designed in which
`client side application program, such as one written with JavaScript, is
`embedded” where “adding, deleting, updating, entry check, calculation, and
`backup, are executed on client side until final submission, save, or print.”
`(emphases added)), 4:7–16 (describing the client side application program as
`“a program written with a script language or other computer language which
`is embedded or called in one or more web pages, executed on client side, and
`used for controls of editing operations of client parties” (emphasis added)),
`7:20–34, 3:46–57, 17:13–18:15, cols. 17–24, Figs. 2, 3, 6, Abstract. Based
`on this evidence, Petitioner contends, and we find, that such description
`discloses “for entry of the data by the user such that the remote computer
`receives the data entered by the user and executes the verification logic,” as
`recited in claim 1. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 91–93).
`Patent Owner, having elected to not file a response after institution,
`does not argue that any limitation in claim 1 is absent in Xue and,
`consequently, has waived any such argument. See Paper 9, 10 (“Patent
`Owner is cautioned that any arguments [for patentability] not raised in the
`response may be deemed waived.”); NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1380‒81
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`(holding that the patent owner waived arguments on an issue that were not
`raised in its response after institution).
`We have considered the entirety of the record in light of Petitioner’s
`contentions on this ground of unpatentability (Pet. 18–36), and we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s mapping of the foregoing limitations of claim 1 to
`the disclosure in Xue, and find that Xue discloses each limitation of claim 1,
`arranged as in claim 1. Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record
`before us, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of
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
