`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: June 29, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`TWITTER, INC. & GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 6, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and IFTIKHAR AHMED,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID L. McCOMBS, ESQ.
`Haynes & Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue
`Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`(214) 651-5533
`
`RAGHAV BAJAJ, ESQ.
`Haynes & Boone, LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`Suite 1300
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 867-8520
`
`ANDREW BALUCH, ESQ.
`Smith Baluch LLP
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
`Second Floor
`Washington, DC 20003
`(202) 880-2397
`
`AMY GREYWITT, ESQ.
`Smith Baluch LLP
`1100 Alma St.
`Suite 109
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(480) 329-4691
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MICHAEL DeVINCENZO, ESQ.
`CHARLES WIZENFELD, ESQ.
`ANDREA PACELLI, ESQ.
`King & Wood Mallesons LLP
`500 Fifth Avenue
`50th Floor
`New York, NY 10110
`(212) 319-4755
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, June 6,
`
`2022, commencing at 1:02 p.m. EST, by video.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE QUINN: Welcome everyone. We are here for
`the hearing on Twitter, Inc. and Google LLC versus B.E.
`Technology, LLC. There are four cases together but I'll
`start with the lowest numbered case, IPR2021-482, - 483,
`-484, and -485. With me are Judges Iftikhar Ahmed and Neil
`Powell. And I am joining you from the Dallas, Texas Regional
`Office.
` Before we start, just a quick reminder that if you
`are not speaking, please mute yourself. If there is a
`technical difficulty, please try to alert us so that we can
`find an alternative form of communication. And we should not
`have, as you know, speaking objections. We only allow you to
`speak when it is your turn.
` Also, because this hearing is scheduled to go for
`over two hours, we are planning on taking a break after the
`petitioner's case-in-chief and we will take a ten-minute
`break at that time, so let's plan accordingly. And at this
`point I'd like to know who is making an appearance for
`petitioner?
` MR. McCOMBS: Hello, Your Honors. I'm David
`McCombs, lead counsel for petitioner Twitter and Google in the
`482 and 483 proceedings. I'm accompanied by Andrew Baluch who
`is lead counsel in the '484 and '485 proceedings. Our counsel
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`presenting today for petitioner will be Amy Greywitt and
`Raghav Bajaj. Ms. Greywitt is our advocate participating in
`the Board's legal experience and advancement program and has
`submitted a LEAP verification form confirming her eligibility
`for the program. Ms. Greywitt will begin and cover our
`presentation through claim construction and then be followed
`by Mr. Bajaj. And by the way, plaintiff counsel will be
`reserving 20 minutes for rebuttal argument.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. So out of the 90 minutes you
`want to reserve 20. So you will go for 70 minutes on your
`case-in-chief?
` MR. McCOMBS: That's correct.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Thank you for that, Mr.
`McCombs.
` And now who do we have for patent owner?
` MR. DeVINCENZO: This is Mike DeVincenzo from King
`Wood Mallesons. I will be addressing claim 1 with respect to
`each of the petitions. With me is Charles Wizenfeld. He will
`be addressing claim 25 for each of the petitions. And also on
`the phone is Andrea Pacelli who is lead counsel on all the
`petitions and he's going to be observing. And we'll be
`reserving eight minutes for surrebuttal. I'm sorry.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. And you can update that time
`if you want to do that after the case-in-chief is over and we
`ask you when it's your turn. Okay?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` MR. DeVINCENZO: Okay. Thank you.
` JUDGE QUINN: Because we're not just right now.
`Okay. Great. Is there anything else we need to discuss
`before we start argument? Petitioner?
` MR. McCOMBS: Not for petitioner.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. DeVINCENZO: Not for patent owner.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. Perfect. Let’s then begin.
`Petitioner, you have the floor and you can start when you're
`ready.
` MS. GREYWITT: Good afternoon, Your Honors, and may
`it please the Board. My name is Amy Greywitt and I appear
`today on behalf of joint petitioners Google and Twitter. I
`will address the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms
`and my co-counsel Raghav Bajaj will address the
`unpatentability grounds.
` Looking at slide 9, both parties here agree that
`the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary
`meaning. However, in an attempt to persuade the Board that
`certain limitations are absent from the prior art, patent
`owner has read additional limitations into certain claim terms
`effectively narrowing the claims beyond the plain and ordinary
`meaning, and these attempts should be rejected.
` Looking at slide 10, I will address the four terms
`discussed in the briefing. First, a computer and a computer
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`user; second, associated; third, identifying the computer; and
`fourth, providing reactive targeting in real time. Throughout
`the argument when we refer to the party's briefing or the
`institution decision, unless otherwise stated we are referring
`to the record in IPR2021-482 related to the '440 patent, the
`matter number that encompasses claims 1 and 25 of the '440
`patent.
` Turning to the first term, a computer user and a
`computer, as shown on slide 11, Claim 1 requires a computer
`user and a computer. The parties agree that the claims
`encompass a single user/single computer scenario. Patent
`owner in its response provides various examples of purported
`advantages of a separate computer identifier and user
`identifier such as a multiple users on one computer or one
`user on multiple computers, but claim 1 requires nothing more
`than a single user and a single computer. As Mr. Bajaj will
`address, the prior art discloses this scenario and he will
`also explain how the prior art discloses alternative scenarios
`involving multiple users or multiple computers.
` Turning to the next term, associated. Slide 13
`demonstrates the usage of the word "associated" in claim 1.
`The claim uses the term "associated" several times but it is
`the first instance, a computer associated with the computer
`user, that is in dispute as it pertains to claim
`interpretation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` Looking at slide 14. As the Board previously
`recognized in the prior IPR related to the '314 patent, the
`ordinary meaning of associated is connected or joined together
`either directly or indirectly.
` Looking to slide 15. Patent owner disagrees with
`petitioner's plain and ordinary meaning only to the extent
`that patent owner contends that in the context of computer
`systems it is data that has to be associated, linked, or
`joined. Patent owner points to the Board's decision regarding
`the term in claim 11 in the prior IPR to support its position
`here.
` But going back to slide 14 and looking at claim 11
`we can see there were two types of associations discussed,
`both which were between data sets in that claim. The first
`was an association between the unique identifier and
`demographic information, which the claim expressly states was
`done in a database, and second, the association between
`computer usage information and said demographic information,
`which was done via the unique identifier in that claim.
` Here, however, as shown on slide 13, claim 1
`requires the association of a computer and a computer user.
`Unlike the objects being associated in claim 11, a computer
`and a computer user as written here are not data sets and
`patent owner's limitation requiring association of data simply
`does not make sense in this context.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, let me ask you something about
`this "associated" term because there are certain various
`pieces of data that are associated with each other here. And
`it seems to me that although there is an argument about how
`much more you have to show in order to prove that there is an
`association, such as by having some sort of links or database
`records or things like that, that the claim does contemplate,
`even though it says a computer associated with the computer
`user, it does contemplate you have a single computer, a single
`user. The specification isn't limited to that scenario that a
`computer could have multiple users associated with it and,
`vice versa, many computer users may be associated with the
`same computer. So how do you consolidate those various views
`with the language of the claim?
` MS. GREYWITT: Sure. That's a good question, Judge
`Quinn. Yeah. So we don't dispute that the specification does
`disclose multiple computers and multiple users, but we're
`simply stating that the claim only requires a single user
`associated with a single computer.
` JUDGE QUINN: Right. But the argument here is that
`if you have nothing showing that association explicitly that a
`mere user identifier wouldn't meet the claims because the
`claim is not limited to only single user/single computer. It
`also envisions that there would be multiple users registered
`on the same computer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` MS. GREYWITT: When an individual user is using a
`particular computer, at that time that user is associated with
`that computer. If another user came and later used the same
`computer than that new user would then be associated with the
`computer.
` JUDGE QUINN: So where is the linking or the
`joining? Because I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that
`the parties agree that associating means to connect or join
`together, combine, either directly or indirectly. Is that
`correct? Everyone agrees?
` MS. GREYWITT: That's correct. Right.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MS. GREYWITT: And that's another point that I
`would like to make is that the association here can be an
`indirect association. There's nothing that requires a direct
`association. So the user is associated with the computer
`indirectly by using the computer.
` JUDGE QUINN: So you say that an indirect
`connection or joining together is the mere use of the computer
`at a specific point in time?
` MS. GREYWITT: Can you repeat that question?
` JUDGE QUINN: That the indirect joining or
`connecting together is a user merely using a computer at a
`particular point in time?
` MS. GREYWITT: Yes. I think that's fair.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` JUDGE AHMED: Let me follow up on that. When you
`say a user is indirectly connected to the computer, why is
`that indirect? The user has a login, a user ID, or whatever
`the user uses for the computer. Isn't that a direct
`connection to the computer?
` MS. GREYWITT: Yes, we would argue that it is a
`direct connection to the computer because the unique ID of the
`user is directly related to the computer via the login as Your
`Honor stated.
` JUDGE AHMED: Okay.
` JUDGE QUINN: So are we talking about connecting a
`human being to an apparatus or are we talking about the data
`that represents that human being using that computer and the
`data that potentially identifies that computer on the network?
` MS. GREYWITT: Well, the claim doesn't specify
`whether it's the data or just the computer and the computer
`user. So the claim is written broadly. And that's the point
`that we're trying to make is that if the patent owner wanted
`to require data to be associated in the database in some
`specific way it could have written the claim accordingly to
`recite a computer number or a computer identifier associated
`with a computer user identifier, for example in a database,
`like it did in claim 11 of the '314 patent. But here it wrote
`the claim -- drafted the claim broadly. And as the Board
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`already concluded in the prior IPR, the plain and ordinary
`meaning of associated simply is connected or joined together
`and that can be done either directly or indirectly.
` JUDGE QUINN: So what would be your interpretation
`then of computer user?
` MS. GREYWITT: I'm a computer user. Any of Your
`Honors could be a computer user. The computer user is
`identified via the unique identifier for the user in the
`patent specification. And as we'll get into --
` JUDGE QUINN: So an identifier that identifies that
`person in the computer system as a computer user. Is that
`what you're saying?
` MS. GREYWITT: Correct. And that's get into the
`next term a little bit, they cross over, which is identifying
`the computer and how that identification is done in the
`patent. So I'm going to turn to identifying the computer and
`see if we can address some of these questions within the
`context of that discussion.
` Looking at slide 17. This illustrates the term
`"identifying the computer" in claim 1. The computer has
`antecedent basis above and a computer associated with the
`computer user. Therefore, the computer that is identified in
`the selecting step is the computer associated with the
`computer user. Per the plain language of the claim, The
`unique identifier need not uniquely identify the computer.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` As can be seen in red underlined in slide 17, the
`only thing in claim 1 that must be uniquely identified is the
`information set from the computer to the one or more servers.
`Thus, the unique identifier in claim 1 identifies at least two
`things, the information sent from the computer to the server
`and the computer.
` And looking at slide 18, claims 8 and 9 of the '410
`and '411 patent, respectively, illustrate that the unique
`identifier must also be capable of identifying a third thing
`which is the copy of the software from among other copies of
`the software. And Mr. Zatkovich agreed during his deposition
`that the unique identifier could identify at least three
`things. Thus, the unique ID is certainly not exclusive to a
`computer identifier and, as we will discuss, it also
`identifies a user.
` Looking at slide 19. The Board made two key
`observations about the identifying the computer limitation in
`the institution decisions, which the patent owner has not
`sufficiently rebutted. First, claim 1's computer can be
`identified either directly or indirectly, including indirectly
`through the user's association with the computer. And second,
`nothing excludes the same unique identifier from being
`associated with the user. So putting these together, the
`claim language encompasses a unique identifier that identifies
`the computer via the computer's association with the user and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`nothing in the claim precludes this and, in fact, as you look
`at the specification and prosecution history, they strongly
`support that the computer is identified via the user.
` And I'm going to --
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, let me ask you something
`because we haven't made our final determination. So what we
`have said in the decision on institution is preliminary based
`on the very limited record we had at the time and now we have
`a more fulsome record and the arguments are flushed out so
`that we can see that there is a contention here between how
`the disclosure gives life to the claim by having a piece of
`data that associates what's happening in the computer with
`what the user is doing because it assigns or it keeps track of
`the software installation, for example, number or serial
`number of whatever software is being installed.
` So, I mean there's a difference here now where we
`have now seen that. There's a one-to-one correspondence in
`the patent between the software on the computer and so that
`helps make the user identifier also, if it's tied to that
`software installation, also serve as a computer identifier.
`But without any kind of data that ties specifically to that
`installation I don't see what other options are there as far
`as the patent covering other ways in which you can track a
`user activity specific to a computer if you don't use
`something that is tied to that computer. Any piece of data,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`it doesn't matter what.
` MS. GREYWITT: First, you're right, the
`specification does contemplate a scenario where the user
`identifier does incorporate a software installation
`identifier. I believe that's in column 22 of the '440 patent.
`But if you look at the specification, the unique identifier
`for the user is what the patent owner is relying on to select
`advertising to be provided to the user in the claim and the
`software installation identifier is not used to select
`advertising content. So it's the unique ID that's in the
`specification for the user that is used in the way that claim
`1 requires.
` And if you look at the prosecution history -- and I
`want to jump forward to slide 23 -- it supports the fact that
`the unique identifier can identify a computer through the user
`ID. So during prosecution, to overcome an obviousness
`rejection based on the prior art, patent owner amended the
`claim to add the underlying language shown on slide 23 to
`describe how in that version of the claim keywords would be
`used to select an advertisement for display on the user's
`computer. This amendment introduced the unique identifier
`identifying the computer for the first time, which was later
`amended into its issued form.
` Looking at slide 24. Patent owner cited certain
`paragraphs from the printed patent publication, which is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`Exhibit 1092 here, to provide section 112 support for the new
`subject matter in the claim. These citations mention only a
`single unique ID or unique identifier used for selecting
`advertising material to be targeted to the user and in each
`instance it is the unique ID for the user rather than the
`computer, and this is outlined in our reply at page 5. In
`other words, patent owner pointed to the unique ID of the user
`during prosecution as the unique identifier identifying the
`computer indicating that the user ID is the unique identifier
`for the computer as well.
` Slides 25 through 28 show examples of how the cited
`portions of the patent application characterize the unique
`identifier and the application always refers to the unique ID
`for the user. Slide 28 illustrates figure 8 of the patent
`application, which was cited by the patent owner, and the only
`unique ID in figure 8 is at block 140 and it says, Assign
`unique ID to the user.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, I don't see patent owner
`arguing that you cannot use a user ID to identify the computer
`or that somehow the patent excludes a user ID or the claims,
`rather, exclude a user ID from performing a function. Are you
`reading their argument to be such -- in such a way?
` MS. GREYWITT: Yes, we are. The patent owner has
`advocated in its briefing that the unique ID for the -- unique
`ID identifies the computer and not the user.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Can you point me specifically to
`where you are referring to? And I'm talking as a matter of
`claim construction, not the argument they're making as to
`apply the claim construction to the prior art.
` MS. GREYWITT: Yes. Let me get the citation for
`you to that particular page.
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
` MS. GREYWITT: Okay. In patent owner response at
`page 25, Thus, the claims make clear that what is being
`identified is the computer, which is associated with the
`computer user and not the user.
` JUDGE QUINN: Right. But these are arguments
`distinguishing Guyot, the prior art. Because I believe the
`argument is that the association in Guyot is limited to only a
`user ID tracking, but there is nothing to tie that user ID to
`the computer.
` MS. GREYWITT: Yes. So later on in the paragraph
`at page 25 the patent owner states, The claims unambiguously
`require a unique identifier identifying the computer and not
`the user. Page 25 of the patent owner response.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay. I'll have an opportunity to
`ask patent owner about that. Thank you.
` MS. GREYWITT: Okay.
` JUDGE AHMED: Let me follow up on your earlier
`argument where you said the identifier identifies multiple
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`things. So is it your argument that it does not have to
`identify the computer? Because the claim does say, A unique
`identifier identifying the computer. I'm just trying to
`figure out how far your argument goes because you clearly said
`it doesn't have to uniquely identify the computer, right? It
`still has to identify the computer.
` MS. GREYWITT: Yes, that's correct. Our position
`is it identifies the computer and a user.
` JUDGE AHMED: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. GREYWITT: Claim 1 --
` JUDGE QUINN: So can you explain to me -- for claim
`1 I think I heard you try to make a distinction that because
`the phrase "unique identifier identifying the computer," which
`my colleague just pointed out, is in the selecting step. So
`that somehow distinguishes the association that is claimed in
`the determining step. Can you expand on that?
` MS. GREYWITT: Sure. The point I was trying to
`make is that the unique identifier identifying the computer
`needs to be the unique identifier that is used in selecting
`advertising content. So when that unique identifier is set in
`the determining step, it is that identifier that will then
`later be used in the selecting step to select advertising
`content.
` JUDGE QUINN: So how does the mere use of a
`computer by a computer user do both of those in determining
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`the identifier that's associated with a computer and also
`functioning as a basis by which information is used to select
`advertisements?
` MS. GREYWITT: So it's the unique ID for the user
`that is ultimately used in the selection and targeting of
`advertisements to the user because that ID provides
`information about the user. For example, the user's
`interests, the user's web browsing history, the user's
`demographic information, potentially what software
`installation the user has on their computer. And so that is
`the ID that the system uses to select relevant advertising
`content. Just looking at a computer ID -- for example, if you
`were to look at another type of computer ID, which would be
`like an IP address, there would be no way to perform the
`functions of claim 1 because there would be no information
`with which the function of selecting an advertisement could be
`performed.
` JUDGE QUINN: Well, what do you say about patent
`owner's argument that if that's all that's required to have a
`user identifier that's unique enough to where you can get the
`information to send the advertisement then all users of all
`computers are associations of that user with that computer?
`Wouldn't that render the term meaningless?
` MS. GREYWITT: I don't think so. In the context of
`the system the user has to log into the system in order to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`receive targeted advertising content. So the user logging
`into a particular computer then associates them with the
`computer and then they receive the targeted advertising
`through the process disclosed in claim 1.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` JUDGE AHMED: So going back to this identifying the
`computer but not uniquely, doesn't identification
`itself -- doesn't identification of the computer itself have
`to be unique? How would you identify a computer but not
`uniquely? What would be an example of that?
` MS. GREYWITT: Well, the identification of the
`computer can be done indirectly. For example, if you look at
`page 6 of the patent owner's surreply, patent owner states
`that the computer can be identified via the software
`installation. So that's an indirect way of identifying the
`computer via the software installation that resides on that
`computer. And in the same way, because the term isn't
`limited, you could identify the computer via the user ID as
`well. It's not restricted.
` JUDGE QUINN: Following up on what my colleague
`just said, it seems that, you know, now we have a question
`about what is unique. Unique with respect to what? Because
`you have uniquely identifying, but that's only about the
`information, and then you identifying, the unique identifier
`identifying the computer but not done uniquely as claimed for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`the information. So what is the unique identifier? How
`unique is it? With respect to what? Is it with respect to
`other users, with respect to other computers?
` MS. GREYWITT: It's unique to a user on a computer,
`a particular user on a particular computer. A computer
`associated with a user as stated in the claim.
` JUDGE QUINN: But that's one option, right? You
`could also identify each computer in the network uniquely and
`do it that way as well, right?
` MS. GREYWITT: There's no disclosure in the
`specification of how that would be done absent perhaps when
`the software installation is associated with the user ID.
` JUDGE QUINN: So you're saying the claim precludes
`a reading of -- a broad reading of the claim such that it
`would read on a system that actually uniquely identifies every
`computer in the network?
` MS. GREYWITT: We don't have to read it as broadly
`as we're advocating. Mr. Bajaj will address even under the
`more narrow reading that you're suggesting where the computer
`must be uniquely identified how the prior art still renders
`obvious or anticipates that more narrow reading of unique
`identifier identifying the computer. Even if the computer has
`to be uniquely identified, Mr. Bajaj will address how we meet
`the limitation.
` JUDGE QUINN: Right. I'm not saying that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00482 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00483 (Patent 8,769,440 B2)
`IPR2021-00484 (Patent 8,549,410 B2)
`IPR2021-00485 (Patent 8,549,411 B2)
`
`claims would or wouldn't. I'm exploring with you your
`position --
` MS. GREYWITT: Yeah.
` JUDGE QUINN: -- because you say you don't have to
`but the claim by its plain language seems to read on such an
`embodiment even though there may be other broader embodiments
`on which it may read.
` MS. GREYWITT: The claim only states that -- the
`only thing that must be uniquely identified, as stated in the
`claim, is the information sent from the computer to the
`server. So the unique identifier identifying the computer, it
`does not have to uniquely identify the computer. As the claim
`states, you must uniquely identify the information sent from
`the computer to the server.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MS. GREYWITT: So wrapping up the discussion of
`identification of the computer, claim 1 permits the computer
`to be identified through the user's association with the
`computer and nothing prohibits the same identifier from being
`associated with the user.
` Moving onto the fourth and last term, Providing
`reactive targeting of advertising to the user in real-time,
`from claim 25 of the '440 patent. Claim 25 is reproduced on
`slide 30. Claim 25 recites a functional goal of, quote,
`Providing reactive targeting to the user in real-time. How is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`1