Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Date: June 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`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, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Date: June 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`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, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`FedEx Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,284
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’284 patent”). Petitioner certifies that it is the only real
`party in interest. Pet. 69. Flectere LLC (“Patent Owner”) is identified as the
`owner of the ’284 patent. Paper 4, 2. Patent Owner waived filing of a
`preliminary response to the Petition. Paper 7.
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). We may not
`institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The Supreme Court has
`held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute
`review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, if the PTAB institutes a
`trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition. See
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (Nov.
`2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf
`(“The Board will not institute on fewer than all claims or all challenges in a
`petition.”).
`Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information
`presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the
`’284 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`as to all challenged claims of the ’284 patent on all grounds raised in the
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`Petition. We base our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the
`proceeding on the evidentiary record developed so far. This is not a final
`decision as to the construction of any claim term or the patentability of any
`claim.
`
`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, L.L.C.,
`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.
`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.
`
`C. The ’284 Patent
`The ’284 patent relates generally 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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., 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., 2:44–46. “Applications 110A–D access data in a
`database 116 through an applications programming interface (API) 114.”
`Id., 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., 2:49–53.
`
`According to the ’284 patent, applications 110A–D implement
`“workflows,” which include a number of actions to be taken by applications
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`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., 3:3–9. Fields include, as relevant to this Petition, “default
`annotation[s]” and “verification annotation[s].” Id., 3:14–15. These
`annotations are “logic which can include references to data contained in
`records in database 116.” Id., 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 records 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., 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., 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., 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 references within default annotation to
`items of data within database 116. Ex. 1001, 4:1–6. However, for
`verification annotation, “application 110A resolves references to data items
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`stored in database 116 by substituting the substantive data values for such
`data items for such references within [the] verification annotation.” Id.,
`4:14–17; see id., 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., 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., 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., 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,
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`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”), 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. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Benjamin B.
`Bederson, Ph.D. (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Xue
`Xue
`Xue, Blinn
`Xue, Blinn, Gupta
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the
`’284 patent based on the following grounds. Pet. 2.
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1, 8, 15
`1021
`1, 8, 15
`103
`1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16
`103
`3, 5, 6, 10,
`103
`12, 13, 17, 19, 20
`4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21
`4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21
`
`Xue, Blinn
`Xue, Blinn, Wolff
`
`103
`103
`II. PATENTABILITY
`A. Person 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, at this stage of the proceeding, does not characterize the skilled
`artisan. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and
`consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the
`’284 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the
`relevant amendment, the pre-AIA versions of § 102 and § 103 apply.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`of skill); Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 666–67 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal,
`which also is consistent with Dr. Bederson’s testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 57–59),
`except that we delete the qualifier “a minimum of” to eliminate 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.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, we construe claims
`“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the
`claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019);2 see also Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner filed its
`Petition on January 13, 2020. Paper 3. Thus, we apply the claim
`construction standard as set forth in Phillips.
`In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
`see CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`2 See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in
`Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed.
`Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (October 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2019)).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`2002) (There is “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary
`and customary meaning.”). “In determining the meaning of the disputed
`claim 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 those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`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. At this stage of the proceeding,
`Patent Owner, having declined to file a preliminary response, has not
`disputed Petitioner’s proposed constructions. In determining that Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of
`at least one challenged claim, we need not and do not construe expressly any
`claim terms.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`C. Principles of Law
`1. Anticipation
`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 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`2. Obviousness
`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) objective evidence of non-
`obviousness.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). When
`evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also “determine whether
`
`
`3 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective
`evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`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).
`“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). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner.
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`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. Based
`on our review of the Petition and current record, we determine that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`claims 1, 8, and 15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Xue, as discussed
`below.
`
`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.
`Ex. 1002, Abstract, Fig. 2; see id., 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”).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a client side shopping cart with
`selected items in the shopping cart.
`Ex. 1002, 3:22–25, Fig. 2. 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 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
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`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., 7:20–34; see id., 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., 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., 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.,
`18:7–8), such as a “function to check if the input is a valid number” (id.,
`cols. 17–18 (see programming code)), and a function for “[c]hecking [a]
`user’s ID and password” (id., 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 back to the server in
`one transmission. Id., 1:47–63 (“only one transmission is enough”), 2:21–
`65, 3:52–58, 16:67–17:1.
`
`According to Xue, Xue’s 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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`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., 2:54–60.
`
`We further discuss below the disclosure of Xue in connection with
`Petitioner’s arguments.
`
`2. Analysis
`Independent Claim 1
`a)
`Petitioner contends Xue discloses all of the limitations of independent
`claim 1. Pet. 18–36.
`For example, Xue discloses 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. Ex. 1002, 7:20–
`34, Figs. 2, 3, 6, Abstract. Petitioner contends such description discloses a
`“method for using a data-entry form to receive data entered by a user,” as
`recited in the preamble of claim 1. Pet. 18–24.
`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.,
`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
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`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)). Petitioner contends such description discloses
`“including one or more fields in the data-entry form,” as recited in claim 1.
`Pet. 24–25.
`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., 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., 17:13–18:15, cols.
`17–24 (exemplary JavaScript code for field logic). Petitioner contends such
`description discloses “for each of the one or more fields, including
`verification logic which, when executed, determines whether form data
`entered by the user is valid for the field,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 25–29.
`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
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`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., 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”). Petitioner contends
`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.
`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.
`Petitioner contends such description discloses “for entry of the data by the
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`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.
`On the current record, and at this stage of the proceeding, we are
`persuaded that the evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that
`independent claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Xue.
`Independent Claims 8 and 15
`b)
`Petitioner contends Xue discloses all of the limitations of independent
`claims 8 and 15. Pet. 45–48, 50–51. In particular, Petitioner argues “Xue
`discloses the claimed computer readable medium, processor, and memory of
`claim 8,” citing, for example, Xue’s disclosure of Internet shopping carts
`involving data transmissions between client side computers and server side
`computers over the Internet. Pet. 45–48 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:21–63,
`3:53–58, 8:36–39). For similar reasons, Petitioner argues Xue discloses a
`“processor, memory, and computer instructions,” which “would include a
`‘form building module’ that causes its server computer to ‘use a data-entry
`form to receive data entered by a user,’” as recited in claim 15. Pet. 50–51.
`We agree with Petitioner that independent claims 8 (“computer readable
`medium” claim) and 15 (“computer system” claim) recite limitations
`commensurate in scope with independent claim 1 (“method” claim). Thus,
`on the current record, and at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded
`that the evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that
`independent claims 8 and 15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Xue, for
`similar reasons as discussed above regarding claim 1.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`E. Obviousness of Claims 1, 8, and 15 over Xue (Ex. 1002)
`Petitioner alternatively contends independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Xue (Ex. 1002).
`Pet. 18–36. For similar reasons as discussed above regarding anticipation by
`Xue of claims 1, 8, and 15, a fortiori, we determine that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that
`claims 1, 8, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Xue. See Cohesive
`Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is
`commonly understood that prior art references that anticipate a claim will
`usually render that claim obvious.”).
`
`F. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 over the
`Combination of Xue (Ex. 1002) and Blinn (Ex. 1003)
`Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
`1.
`Petitioner also alternatively contends independent claims 1, 8, and 15
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`Xue (Ex. 1002) and Blinn (Ex. 1003). Pet. 18–36.
`Blinn relates generally to “a shopping and merchandising system for
`online networks, such as the World Wide Web portion of the Internet,” as
`shown, for example, in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below. Ex. 1003, 1:6–9,
`Abstract, Figs. 1, 2.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an online network for implementing a
`shopping and merchandising system, including client 100,
`server 102, and network 104.
`Ex. 1003, 4:29–30, 5:32–48, Fig. 1.
`
`Figure 2 depicts an overview of an online merchant system.
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00403
`Patent 6,415,284 B1
`
`Ex. 1003, 4:31–32, 6:26–46, Fig. 2. Blinn discloses that merchant system
`120 communicates with database 121, consumer browser 122, merchant
`browser 123, and network 124. Id., 6:26–28. “[D]atabase 121 may include
`query data, product information, order information, shopper information,
`store information, receipts and customer feedback data.” Id., 6:33–36
`(emphases added). In operation, “[a] shopper uses a consumer browser 122,
`such as Microsoft Explorer or Netscape Navigator, communicating with a
`network 124, such as the World Wide Web portion of the Internet, to access
`a merchant’s online store using the merchant system 120.” Id., 6:36–40.
`
`Petitioner introduces Blinn here for teaching, inter alia, “‘[d]uring a
`shopping session, the consumer browser 122 sends requests embedded in
`URL addresses to the merchant system 120,’ and the merchant system 120
`responds by sending an HTML web page back to the client over the
`[I]nternet,” where such web pages include “an [I]nternet shopping cart or
`‘shopping basket.’” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:1–16, 10:5–17). Petitioner
`submits “Blinn therefore discloses sending an HTML web page from a
`server to a client over the [I]nternet” for execution by the client side or
`remote computer. Pet. 33. Petitioner argues, for example, it would have
`been obvious to the skilled artisan “to combine the sending feature o
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
