U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Docket No. 1202549-0005
`Filed on behalf of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
`By: David M. Tennant, Reg. No. 48,362
`White & Case LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 626-3684
`Email: dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`William Grecia
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.9-, 42.100-.123
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EWS-006141
`
`Early Warning Services 1041
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,308
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 5
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................ 5
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
` Notice of Counsel and Service Information ...................................... 7 C.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .............................. 7
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................ 8
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Prior Art ............................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
` Grounds for Challenge ...................................................................... 8 B.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’308 PATENT ........................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Priority Date of the ’308 Patent......................................................... 9
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’308 Patent ........................... 9
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .........................................................10
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Levy .................................................................................................10
`
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................14
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`“verified web service” .....................................................................15
`
`“recognized” ....................................................................................16
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..................................................17
`
`A.
`
` Ground I: Claim 1 is anticipated by Levy .......................................17
`
`1.
`
`Preamble: “A process for transforming a user access
`request for cloud digital content into a computer readable
`
`
`
`EWS-006142
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`authorization object, the process for transforming
`comprising” ...........................................................................17
`
`Element [1.A.1]: “a) receiving an access request for cloud
`digital content through an apparatus in process with at
`least one CPU, the access request being a write request to
`a data store” .........................................................................20
`
`Element [1.A.2]: “wherein the data store is at least one of:
`[i] a memory connected to the at least one CPU; [ii] a
`storage connected to the at least one CPU; [iii] and a
`database connected to the at least one CPU through the
`Internet; wherein” .................................................................25
`
`Element [1.A.3]: “the access request further comprises
`verification data provided by at least one user, wherein the
`verification data is recognized by the apparatus as a
`verification token; then” .......................................................26
`
`Element [1.B]: “b) authenticating the verification token of
`(a) using a database recognized by the apparatus of (a) as
`a verification token database; then” ....................................27
`
`Element [1.C.i]: “c) establishing an API communication
`between the apparatus of (a) and a database apparatus, the
`database apparatus being a different database from the
`verification token database of (b) wherein the API is
`related to a verified web service, wherein the verified web
`service is a part of the database apparatus,” .......................29
`
`Element [1.C.ii] “wherein establishing the API
`communication requires a credential assigned to the
`apparatus of (a), wherein the apparatus assigned
`credential is recognized as a permission to conduct a data
`exchange session between the apparatus of (a) and the
`database apparatus to complete the verification process,” .33
`
`Element [1.C.iii]: “wherein the data exchange session is
`also capable of an exchange of query data, wherein the
`query data comprises at least one verified web service
`account identifier; then” .......................................................36
`
`2
`
`EWS-006143
`
`

`

`9.
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Element [1.D]: “d) requesting the query data, from the
`apparatus of (a), from the API communication data
`exchange session of (c), wherein the query data request is a
`request for the at least one verified web service identifier;
`then,” .....................................................................................39
`
`10. Element [1.E]: “e) receiving the query data requested in
`(d) from the API communication data exchange session of
`(c); and,” ...............................................................................41
`
`11. Element [1.F.i]: “f) creating a computer readable
`authorization object by writing into the data store of (a) at
`least one of: the received verification data of (a); and the
`received query data of ( e ).” ................................................43
`
`12. Element [1.F.ii]: “wherein the created computer readable
`authorization object is recognized by the apparatus of (a)
`as user access rights associated to the cloud digital
`content,” ................................................................................44
`
`13. Element [1.F.iii]: “wherein the computer readable
`authorization object is processed by the apparatus of (a)
`using a cross-referencing action during subsequent user
`access requests to determine one or more of a user access
`permission for the cloud digital content.” ............................46
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`EWS-006144
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pramatus AV LLC,
`2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17678 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................. 15
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 15
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100-.123 ........................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 17
`
`4
`
`EWS-006145
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123,
`
`Petitioner American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`hereby petitions for inter partes review of claim 1 (“Challenged Claim”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,887,308 (the “’308 patent”) and cancellation of claim 1 as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`
`
` Real Party-in-Interest A.
`
`American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. is owned by
`
`American Express Company. The real parties-in-interest are American Express
`
`Travel Related Services Company, Inc. and American Express Company.
`
`
`
` Related Matters B.
`
`Petitioner has filed, or will file, concurrently with the present petition,
`
`petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,533,860 (“’860 patent”) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555 (“’555 patent”), from each of which the ‘308 patent
`
`claims priority.
`
`On November 23, 2015, Patent Owner filed a patent infringement suit
`
`asserting the ’555, ’308, and ’860 patents originally against American Express
`
`Company in Southern District of New York (1:15-cv-09217) and served the
`
`complaint on January 28, 2016. On May 11, 2016, Patent Owner filed an amended
`
`5
`
`EWS-006146
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`complaint substituting American Express Company with American Express Travel
`
`Related Services Company, Inc. as the defendant.
`
`Patent Owner filed patent infringement suits against other parties. On Dec.
`
`6, 2013, Patent Owner filed patent infringement suits naming Microsoft, Google,
`
`Sony, and Apple that alleged infringement of the ’860 patent. Between Feb. 20,
`
`2014 and Dec. 15, 2016, Grecia filed patent infringement suits against the
`
`following for infringement of different combinations of the ’555, ’860, and ’308
`
`patents: Adobe, Visa, MasterCard, Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable,
`
`AT&T, DirecTV, WideOpenWest Finance, RCN, Charter Communications, Time
`
`Warner Cable, Comcast, DISH Network, Amazon.com, Samsung, Vudu,
`
`McDonald’s, Cox Communication, Neiman Marcus, J. Crew, BestBuy, Adorama
`
`Camera, Starz Entertainment, NFL Network, Fox Entertainment, Cablevision, Big
`
`Ten Network, and Target.
`
`In addition, on December 14, 2014, Sony Network Entertainment
`
`International LLC filed a petition for inter partes (“Sony IPR”) review of the ’555
`
`patent that was subsequently terminated by request of the parties. See IPR2015–
`
`00422. On March 22, 2016, Unified Patents filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ’555 patent, and on Nov. 29, 2016, the Board denied institution. On Feb. 17,
`
`2016, Unified Patents filed a Petition for inter partes review of the ’860 patent, and
`
`on Oct. 13, 2016, the Board denied institution. On Mar. 3, 2016, Unified Patents
`
`6
`
`EWS-006147
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`filed a Petition for inter partes review of the ’308 patent, and on Nov. 22, 2016, the
`
`Board denied institution. On July 29, 2016, DISH Network LLC filed a Petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’308 patent, and on January 19, 2017, the Board
`
`denied institution.
`
`
`
` Notice of Counsel and Service Information C.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel are:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3807
`202-626-3600 (phone)
`202-639-9355 (fax)
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings
`Registration No. 46,072
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3807
`202-626-3600 (phone)
`202-639-9355 (fax)
``
`
`A Power of Attorney is being filed concurrently herewith in accordance with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner consents to electronic service. Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), all services and communication to the above attorneys can be
`
`sent to WCAMEXIPRTeam@whitecase.com.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner files this Petition
`
`7
`
`EWS-006148
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`within one year of Petitioner or a Real Party-in-Interest of the ’308 patent first
`
`being served with a complaint for patent infringement.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claim 1of the ’308 patent.
`
`A.
`
`
`Prior Art1
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:2
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0156726 to Levy (EX1004,
`
`“Levy”), published July 5, 2007, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
` Grounds for Challenge B.
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Richard Kramer (“Kramer,”
`
`EX1002), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to the Challenged Claim and the Challenged Claim is not
`
`patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged
`
`claim 1 under the following statutory ground:
`
`
`
`1 The prior art was not cited in any of other inter partes review petitions filed by
`
`other parties.
`
`2 Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the prior art.
`
`8
`
`EWS-006149
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground 1: Claim 1 is anticipated by Levy.
`
`1.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’308 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`
`Priority Date of the ’308 Patent
`
`March 21, 2010 is earliest application filing date to which the ’308 patent
`
`claims priority. In the 11-27-2012 office action response in the prosecution history
`
`of the ’555 patent (to which the ’308 patent claims priority), Patent Owner
`
`acknowledged that it did not claim the benefit of Provisional Application No.
`
`61/303,292, filed Feb. 10, 2010. See EX1007 [’555FH] (11/27/2012 Response to
`
`Office Action). Accordingly, the ’308 patent is not entitled to priority of the
`
`Provisional Application, and the earliest effective filing date is March 21, 2010.
`
`B.
`
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’308 Patent
`
`The ’308 patent describes a way to access media based on a membership, as
`
`opposed to a specific machine ID, with a membership token being written into the
`
`metadata corresponding to the requested media, as shown by the flow chart of Fig.
`
`3 of the ’308 patent, reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`EWS-006150
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`
`
` Levy A.
`
`
`
`Levy discloses a system that connects consumers of digital content and
`
`associated metadata to managed metadata databases for the content and other
`
`digital resources. See EX1004 [Levy], [Abstract]. The Levy system allows users
`
`to access such content and the associated metadata via a routing system with user
`
`console devices including applications such as readers. See id., Figs. 3, 9.
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), below is a side-by-side
`
`illustration of Levy Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 2 is “a flow diagram illustrating interaction
`
`between a reader and a directory system to link a content object with a metadata
`
`source,” and Fig. 3 is “a system diagram illustrating a directory system and its
`
`interaction with ID providers for registration of content IDs and readers for
`
`resolution of content IDs.” See EX1004 [Levy], [0047]-[0048].
`10
`
`EWS-006151
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), as seen in Figs. 2 and 3, a
`
`user using reader 216 extracts (step 110) a content identifier (CID) of a requested
`
`content object and sends (step 112) the CID to the directory system 204. See
`
`EX1004 [Levy], [0062]. One way of getting the CID is from content with
`
`fingerprint information. See EX1004 [Levy], [0219]. The fingerprint reader
`
`calculates the fingerprint, sends it to the fingerprint server. See id. The fingerprint
`
`server determines the CID from the fingerprint database, returns the CID to the
`
`11
`
`EWS-006152
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`reader, and the reader uses the CID to the directory system 204 to request the
`
`URLs (via ResURLs) from the Router. See id.
`
``As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), a user can use Levy
`
`system as an anonymous user or a registered user. See EX1004 [Levy], [0204],
`
`[0210], [0211]. An anonymous use can use the reader to make request of content
`
`identified by fingerprint as discussed above. See id.
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), an anonymous user can
`
`become a registered user and authenticate himself or herself against the Levy
`
`system. See EX1004 [Levy], [0211]. Levy authenticates each user and the
`
`associated reader and encrypts data for secure communication between the reader
`
`and content owners, which Levy depicts in Fig. 8, below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`EWS-006153
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), the User Reading
`
`Environment, including the reader 216 and associated software as illustrated in Fig.
`
`3, authenticates and registers the user by communication with the Registration
`
`Authority Router Environment. See EX1004 [Levy], [0146]. Users register by
`
`submitting information such as their email address, home address, reader ID,
`
`registration identification, password, etc. See id., [0416]. The Registration
`
`Authority Router Environment includes routers to authenticate users’ identities
`
`(e.g., “kenlevy”). See id., [0124] (“Further, if the router has authenticated the user
`
`and the user’s account status, it re-directs the user to URLs that are secure
`
`electronic commerce sites, initialized based on the user’s identity.”). Upon
`
`registration, “[t]he reader software keeps the username and submits it with each
`
`resolution request,” as described above with respect to the communication between
`
`the reader 216 and directory system 214. See id., [0268].
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), after a registered user
`
`using the reader sends the request to the directory system 204, the directory system
`
`combines (step 114) the CID into a GUI (global unique identifier) and requests
`
`(step 116) source information for the metadata for the content object from the
`
`Database System 208. See EX1004 [Levy], [0064]. Upon receiving the metadata
`
`source information, referred to as the Metadata Source ID 212, the directory
`
`system 204 sends (arrow from step 116 to the reader) the Metadata Source ID 212
`
`13
`
`EWS-006154
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`to the reader 216, which allows the reader 216 to retrieve metadata and further
`
`permit access to the associated content object. See id., [0065].
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶¶45-47), as explained further below,
`
`Levy’s Resolution Interface 224 and router system brands metadata by writing the
`
`Metadata Source ID including the user’s registered identity for accessing content.
`
`See EX1004 [Levy], [0069], [0187], [0326], [0005].
`
`VII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The ’308 patent relates to conditional access systems for digital media. The
`
`level of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to
`
`the ’308 patent is (i) a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or Computer Engineering, or the equivalent and (ii) approximately two to
`
`five years of direct relevant experience in developing conditional access systems
`
`for digital media.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms of a patent in inter partes review are normally given the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b): see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–81 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). The following discussion proposes constructions and support for those
`
`constructions. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion should be
`
`14
`
`EWS-006155
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`given their ordinary meaning in light of the specification, as commonly understood
`
`by those of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`
`claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction under the standard
`
`set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), but it cannot be
`
`narrower. See Facebook, Inc. v. Pramatus AV LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17678,
`
`*11 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The constructions proposed below should be applied
`
`regardless of whether the terms are interpreted under the Phillips standard or the
`
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard.
`
`There have been no claim construction orders yet in the District Court
`
`litigations involving the ’308 patent. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to
`
`argue in litigation a different claim construction for any term, as appropriate to that
`
`proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`
`“verified web service”
`
`Outside the claims, this term only appears once in the ’308 patent:
`
`The web service equipped with the API is usually a well–known
`membership themed application in which the users must use an
`authentic identification. Some example includes Facebook …. Other
`verified web services in which real member names are required such
`as the LinkedIn API and the PayPal API …
`
`See EX1001 (’308 Patent), 10:41–51 (emphasis added).
`
`In the Grecia v. Amazon litigation, Patent Owner proposed “a web service
`
`accessible with an authenticated credential,” and Amazon proposed “a web service
`
`15
`
`EWS-006156
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`that is used to authenticate the identity of a user or device.” See EX1003, Grecia v.
`
`Amazon.com Claim Construction, Ex. C, p. 16. The term of an “authenticated
`
`credential” does not appear in the ’308 patent, and the only example in the ’308
`
`patent is a Facebook login name and password to authenticate the user, not
`
`authenticate the credential. Thus, Petitioner believes the construction, under BRI,
`
`is a web service that is used to authenticate the identity of a user or a device. See
`
`EX1002 [Kramer], ¶¶ 41-43.
`
`B.
`
`
` “recognized”
`
`In element a) of claim 1, there is reference to “the verification token is
`
`recognized by the apparatus as a verification token.” Element b) refers to “a
`
`database recognized by the apparatus of a) as a verification token database.”
`
`Element c) recites “wherein the apparatus assigned credential is recognized as a
`
`permission to conduct a data exchange session ….” Element f) recites “the created
`
`computer readable authorization object is recognized by the apparatus of (a) as
`
`user access rights ….” The term “recogniz” (with e, ed or ing endings) only
`
`appears twice in the ‘308 patent, in unrelated uses. The background refers to
`
`“…embedded copy protection schemes also recognized as an early form of DRM.”
`
`See EX1001 [’308 Patent], 1:67-2:1. The description refers to “and optionally to
`
`their recognized friends and family.” See id., 5:11–12. It is not referred to in the
`
`file history. See EX1002 [Kramer], ¶44.
`
`16
`
`EWS-006157
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Thus, the meaning must be determined from the context of the usage in the
`
`claim itself. That context shows a usage indicating that a characteristic is assumed
`
`or acted on, or simply that received or sent data or a database has a certain
`
`characteristic. Thus, Petitioner submits the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“recognized” is identified, assumed, acted upon, or acknowledged a characteristic
`
`of data or a database. See EX1002 [Kramer], ¶44.
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections demonstrate in detail
`
`how the prior art discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 of the ’308 patent,
`
`and how the claim is anticipated by the prior art. These analyses are confirmed in
`
`the Kramer Declaration (EX1002).
`
`
` Ground I: Claim 1 is anticipated by Levy A.
`Preamble: “A process for transforming a user access request
`1.
`for cloud digital content into a computer readable authorization object, the
`process for transforming comprising”
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶49), Levy discloses a process for
`
`transforming access to cloud digital content using a system, such as seen in Levy
`
`Fig. 3 below, the cloud digital content being movies, audios, and other works. See
`
`EX1004 [Levy], [0003].
`
`17
`
`EWS-006158
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`The system of Fig. 3 is cloud based, such as using the Internet, for
`
`transforming access requests to cloud digital content. See EX1004 [Levy] [0087]
`
`(“The [directory system and method] for communicating and routing a device
`
`(such as computer or wireless phone handset) having a content object to another
`
`having metadata relating to the content object apply to different types of networks,
`
`including computer networks like the Internet , and wireless telephone
`
`networks…The router can be implemented in the cell phone network, the Internet,
`
`18
`
`EWS-006159
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`or spanning both the cell phone and Internet.”) (Emphasis added); [0141] (Internet
`
`based cloud system such as Flickr).
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶49), Levy teaches that digital
`
`content accessible by its system exists on the Internet, and thus Levy discloses
`
`cloud digital content. For example, Levy discloses XML-based “Request Message
`
`(ResURLs)” that identifies Content ID (“<CID>999</CID>”) of the requested
`
`movie residing on, for example, http://www.disney.com. See EX1004 [Levy],
`
`[0419]. Levy further discloses that the “Response Message,” shown below,
`
`returned in response to the Request Message, includes the URL that includes web
`
`links to “fantasia” related media:
`
`
`
`See id.
`
`
`
`As explained below in Section IX.A.11 below, Levy discloses a computer
`
`readable authorization object, which corresponds to an XML-based Response
`
`Message as describe above, into which the user’s access request for cloud digital
`
`content is transformed.
`
`19
`
`EWS-006160
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Thus, Levy discloses this element. See EX1002[Kramer], ¶49.
`
`Element [1.A.1]: “a) receiving an access request for cloud
`2.
`digital content through an apparatus in process with at least one CPU, the access
`request being a write request to a data store”
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶50), the Levy system, including
`
`Central Router and/or Directory System, receives an access request for cloud
`
`digital content through Levy’s reader and associated embedded software and
`
`software modules (apparatus). See EX1004 [Levy], [0069] (“the readers …
`
`extract the content ID and forward it … to the directory system’s resolution
`
`interface.”), [0089], [0091], [0219] (“In the background, when a user requests to
`
`receive more information for content identified with fingerprint, the fingerprint
`
`reader calculates the fingerprint, sends it to the fingerprint server … on the Central
`
`Router”), Figs. 2, 3, 7.
`
`Such an apparatus, i.e., Levy’s reader and associated software, runs on (i.e.,
`
`is in process with) a device that can be “computer or wireless phone handset,”
`
`which includes a CPU. See EX1004 [Levy], [0087], [0089], [0144] (“the user’s
`
`device includes an application that incorporates the reader, which extracts a
`
`content ID from the content …”), [0186] (“linked to a local request Databases
`
`across multiple CPUs”). See EX1002[Kramer], ¶50.
`
`As Kramer explains (EX1002[Kramer], ¶50), Levy discloses that requests
`
`can be made by anonymous or registered users. See EX1004 [Levy], [0204],
`
`20
`
`EWS-006161
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`[0210]. An anonymous user can later become a registered user by registering his
`
`or her unique identity (e.g., “kenlevy”) with the Levy system to receive more
`
`targeted information. See id., [0211] (“When this registered user requests more
`
`information about the video from the reader plug-in software (via ResURLs), the
`
`same five links as displayed for the anonymous user are displayed, as well as links
`
`to additional theatres in the user's zip code that are playing Fantasia or similar
`
`movies, as well as stores in the user's zip code that carry the related
`
`merchandise.”). Below is an example of the XML-based Request Messages
`
`(access requests for cloud digital content) having
`
`“<Username>kenlevy</Username>” that the apparatus sends to access the
`
`content. See EX1004 [Levy], [0247] (“The registration and resolution request
`
`messages use XML”), [0419]:
`
`SecondaryInfo values
`not sent for anonymous
`users
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`EWS-006162
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`For an anonymous user who has not registered with the system, the request
`
`necessarily will not include the value associated with “<Username>” under
`
`“<SecondaryInfo>.” Indeed, as seen in the side-by-side comparison the XML tag
`
`definitions, Levy explains that secondary request information is “optional” as
`
`compared to primary request information (under <PrimaryInfo>) as being
`
`“required” mostly.
`
`Primary Request Information
`
`
`Secondary Request Information
`
`
`
`See id., [311], [313]; EX1002[Kramer], ¶50.
`
`
`
`22
`
`EWS-006163
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Levy teaches numerous other requests to access various cloud digital content
`
`and/or associated metadata. First, Levy discloses requests for adding a metadata
`
`“tag” associated with a movie and/or audio from authenticated users through
`
`networks, such Internet. See EX1004 [Levy], [0141] (“These systems enable users
`
`to apply metadata, called ‘tags,’ to pieces of content. In particular, Flickr allows
`
`users to upload images and add tags to images within the context of the Flickr
`
`system.”). Second, Levy discloses requests for storing “critic” reviews or user
`
`recommendations related to movies and/or audios from authenticated users through
`
`networks, such Internet. See id., [0098] (“creation of metadata for content objects
`
`by posting recommendations, preferences, and other related information about
`
`content objects in metadata repository.”), [0099]. Third, Levy discloses a “tracing
`
`method” for recording all user actions related to accessing the content and
`
`metadata, along with a unique ID, for later analysis. Thus, for each action, Levy
`
`brands the “user identification,” “content ID,” and other information into the
`
`system’s metadata in order to report on “Usage Statistics” and/or “vital marketing
`
`statistics.” See id., [0154], [0147]-[0149], [0154], [0157], [0174]. Fourth, Levy
`
`teaches requests for writing any type of “user generated metadata” into the “user
`
`generated metadata repository” associated with movie and/or audio files from
`
`authenticated users through networks, such Internet. See id., [0096], [0140]. Fifth,
`
`Levy discloses requests for accessing Metadata Source to access metadata through
`
`23
`
`EWS-006164
`
`

`

`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,887,308
`Petition fo