Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
` Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Twitter-Google Exhibit 1034
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
` Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Twitter-Google Exhibit 1034
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 11-22 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’314 patent”). Paper 5
`(“Pet.”). B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a
`Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD — The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we determine that the information
`presented by Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 11-22
`of the ’314 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of these
`claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’314 patent is the subject of litigation in
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., No 2:12-cv-02829-JPM (W.D.
`Ten.), where Petitioner was served on October 10, 2012. Pet. 4-5.
`Additionally, the ’314 patent is the subject of these inter partes
`reviews: IPR2014-00038, IPR2014-00052, and IPR2014-00053.
`In related proceeding IPR2014-00040, Petitioner also seeks review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 B1. U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 is also the subject
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`of these inter partes reviews: IPR2014-00029, IPR2014-00031, IPR2014-
`00033, and IPR2014-00044.
`B. The ’314 Patent
`The ’314 patent relates to user interfaces that provide advertising
`obtained over a global computer network. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 12-16. The
`’314 patent discloses a client software application that comprises a graphical
`user interface (GUI) program module and an advertising and data
`management (ADM) module. Id. at col. 6, ll. 64-67. The GUI comprises
`multiple regions, including a first region comprising a number of user
`selectable items and a second region comprising an information display
`region, such as banner advertisements. Id. at col. 4, ll. 24-37. Program
`modules associated with the GUI store statistical data regarding the display
`of the selected informational data, allowing the targeting of banner
`advertisements based upon the type of link selected by the user. Id. at col. 4,
`ll. 43-51. The system for selecting and providing advertisements is set forth
`in Figure 3 as follows:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00039
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`User/Demmographicss
`
`
`s a block dFigure 33 illustrates
`
`
`
`a system ddistributingg
`iagram of
`
`
`
`
`
`adveertisementss over the IInternet. IdId. at col. 66, ll. 21-22.. ADM serrver 22 is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`acceessible by cclient compputers 40 oover Internnet 20, wheere client coomputers
`
`40 hhave the client softwaare applicattion installled. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 8, ll. 332-35.
`
`
`
`
`
`ADMM server haas associatted with it Ad Databaase 44 and
`
`
`
`
`
`Dataabase 46. IId. at col. 88, ll. 38-43
`
`. Ad Dataabase 44 st
`
`ores banneer
`
`adveertising thaat is providded to cliennt computeers 40. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`formation
`
`
`used in tarrgeting advvertising
`
`
`
`Dataabase 46 stores demoographic in
`
`
`downnloaded too individuaal client commputers 400. Id. at cool. 8, ll. 55
`-57.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`When a user first aaccesses thhe client sooftware appplication foor the
`ubmits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purpposes of doownloadingg and installling the appplication,, the user s
`
`
`ed to deterrmine whatt advertisinng is
`
`
`
`demographic innformationn that is us
`
`
`provvided to thee user. Id.
`
`at col. 8, l
`
`
`
`
`l. 57-62. TThe demoggraphic infformation iis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submmitted by thhe user by entering thhe informaation into aa form provvided to thhe
`
`
`
` User/Demmographicss
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`user, and ADM server 22 checks the completeness of the form. Id. at col.
`16, l. 60 - col. 17, l. 2. ADM server 22 then assigns a unique ID to the user
`and stores the unique ID with the received user demographic information.
`Id. at col. 17, ll. 11-15. An initial set of advertisements is selected, and the
`client software application is downloaded to client computer 40 for
`installation. Id. at col. 17, ll. 17-23. The client software application
`monitors user interaction with the computer, whether with the client
`software application or with other applications, and later reports this
`information to the ADM server. Id. at col. 12, ll. 55-59; col. 13, ll. 1-2.
`Advertising banners are displayed in response to some user input or
`periodically at timed intervals. Id. at col. 14, ll. 40-43. Client software
`application targets the banner advertising displayed, based on the user’s
`inputs, so that it relates to what the user is doing. Id. at col. 14, ll. 43-46.
`C. Exemplary Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 11-22 of the ’314 patent. Independent
`claim 11 and dependent claims 15 and 20 are illustrative of the claims at
`issue and follow:
`11. A method of providing demographically-targeted
`advertising to a computer user, comprising the steps of:
`providing a server that is accessible via a computer
`network,
`permitting a computer user to access said server via said
`computer network,
`acquiring demographic information about the user, said
`demographic information including information specifically
`provided by the user in response to a request for said
`demographic information,
`providing the user with download access to computer
`software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising
`content, records computer usage information concerning the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`user’s utilization of the computer, and periodically requests
`additional advertising content,
`transferring a copy of said software to the computer in
`response to a download request by the user,
`providing a unique identifier to the computer, wherein
`said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said
`computer network from the computer to said server,
`associating said unique identifier with demographic
`information in a database,
`selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer
`in accordance with the demographic information associated
`with said unique identifier;
`transferring said advertising content from said server to
`the computer for display by said program,
`periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said
`computer usage information recorded by said software from the
`computer via said computer network, and
`associating said computer usage information with said
`demographic information using said unique identifier.
`
`15. The method of claim 11, wherein said providing a unique
`identifier step further comprises storing a cookie on the
`computer.
`
`20. The method of claim 11, wherein said acquiring step
`further comprises requesting said demographic information in
`response to a request from the user to download said software
`and receiving said demographic information from the user prior
`to providing the user with access to said software.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth Petitioner’s
`contentions of unpatentability of claims 11-22 of the ’314 patent under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, as follows (see Pet. 6-7, 10-60):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Shaw1
`Shaw and Robinson2
`Shaw and RFC 16353
`Guyot4
`Guyot and Robinson
`Guyot and RFC 1635
`Robinson
`Robinson
`Robinson and RFC 1635
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`11-14 and 16-19
`15
`20-22
`11-14 and 16-20
`15
`20-22
`11-19
`11, 16, and 17
`20-22
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). Also, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,809,242 (Ex. 1005) (“Shaw”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,014 (Ex. 1007) (“Robinson”).
`3 Deutsch et al., How to Use Anonymous FTP, IAFA Working Group, 1-13
`(May 1994) (Ex. 1022) (“RFC 1635”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,119,098 (Ex. 1006) (“Guyot”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`1. “demographic information”
`Petitioner proposes that the term “demographic information” means
`“information collected about end user characteristics that does not identify
`the end user.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105-106). Petitioner points to the
`context of “demographic information” as used in the Specification to include
`time zone, locale, and client hardware. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 8-11).
`Petitioner further argues that the Specification specifically describes
`“demographic information” to exclude information that identifies an end-
`user for privacy concerns. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 40-48). We agree
`that Petitioner’s proposed definition for “demographic information” is both
`reasonable and consistent with its usage in the Specification. Accordingly,
`we construe “demographic information” to mean “collected characteristic
`information about a user that does not identify the user.”
`B. Claims 11-14 and 16-19 – Anticipated by Guyot
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-14 and 16-19 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Guyot. Pet. 27-35. In support of
`this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed by Guyot. In its
`explanations, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Henry Houh (Ex. 1003).
`1. Guyot (Ex. 1006)
`Guyot discloses a system and method for targeting and distributing
`advertisements over a distributed information network, such as the Internet.
`Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 9-11. The distributed information network allows for
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00039
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation to be exchannged betweeen a serveer and multtiple subscrriber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systeems. Id. att col. 3, ll. 13-16; coll. 3, ll. 44-447. The addvertisemeent
`
`
`targeeting systemm is set fo
`
`
`rth in Figuure 1 as folllows:
`
`proprietaryy
`
`
`ple
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts thhe system tto include sserver 2000 and multi
`
`
`
`
`
`subsscriber systtems 300. Id. at col. 3, ll. 15-166. Informaation is excchanged
`
`
`ion links
`
`
`
`
`
`
`betwween serverr 200 and ssubscriber systems 3000 over coommunicat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`400. Id. at col. 3, ll. 17-118. Each ssubscriber ssystem hass a unique
`
`
`
`
`tifier. Id. aat col. 3, lll. 21-22. SServer 200
`iden
`
`stores andd manages
`an
`
`
`
`
`
`adveertisement database. Id. at col. 3, ll. 24-255. Subscriiber systemms 300
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`perioodically acccess server 200 to doownload addvertisemeents that arre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`speccifically tarrgeted to a subscriberr based on
`
`
`a subscribber’s personnal profile
`
`
`
`storeed on serveer 200. Id. at col. 3, lll. 26-29.
`
`
`
`Subscriberr systems 3300 then
`
`displlay the targgeted adveertisementss. Id. at co
`
`
`
`
`l. 3, ll. 29--30.
`
`
`
`The advertisementt database sstores, for
`
`
`each subsccriber, subbscriber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data,, which inccludes the subscriberr’s identificcation infoormation, thhe
`
`
`subsscriber’s paassword, annd the subsscriber’s ppersonal proofile. Id. aat col. 3, ll
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55-660. The subbscriber’s personal pprofile is obbtained by
`
`having thee
`
`
`
`subsscriber provvide answeers to a queestionnairee. Id. at cool. 3, ll. 600-65. The
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`subscriber’s personal profile is used to target specific advertisements to the
`subscriber. Id. at col. 3, ll. 60-61.
`The subscriber system includes a memory, which stores a client
`application, and a processor, which executes the client application. Id. at
`col. 3, ll. 30-36. The client application establishes a connection between the
`subscriber system and the server, and the client application uploads
`subscriber statistics to the server, and downloads, if necessary, the latest
`version of the client application software from the server. Id. at col. 5, ll.
`18-27. The subscriber statistics preferably include information related to the
`advertisements displayed on the subscriber’s system and information on the
`Internet sites that the subscriber has accessed over a predetermined period of
`time. Id. at col. 4, ll. 15-23. This information is utilized to define further the
`subscriber’s personal profile. Id.
`2. Analysis
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 11-14 and 16-19 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Guyot. Pet. 27-35.
`For example, independent claim 11 recites a method of providing
`demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user. Guyot discloses a
`system and method for “targeting and distributing advertisements over a
`distributed network, such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 9-11.
`
`Claim 11 further recites “providing a server that is accessible via a
`computer network” and “permitting a computer user to access said server via
`said computer network.” Guyot discloses that server 200 is connected to
`multiple subscriber systems 300 over a distributed information network,
`such as the Internet. Id. at col. 3, ll. 15-22; Fig. 1.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Claim 11 also recites “acquiring demographic information about the
`user, said demographic information including information specifically
`provided by the user in response to a request for said demographic
`information.” Guyot discloses that the server stores a subscriber’s personal
`profile, where the personal profile “is preferably obtained by having the
`subscriber provide answers to a questionnaire.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 51-65.
`Subscriber statistics, such as the advertisements distributed to the subscriber
`and the number of times each advertisement has been displayed to the
`subscriber, are used to further define the subscriber’s personal profile. Id. at
`col. 4, ll. 15-23.
`Claim 11 further recites “providing the user with download access to
`computer software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising
`content, records computer usage information concerning the user’s
`utilization of the computer, and periodically requests additional advertising
`content” and “transferring a copy of said software to the computer in
`response to a download request by the user.” Guyot discloses that a client
`application is provided to the subscriber’s computer. Id. at col. 1, ll. 58-60.
`The subscriber can manually request a connection to the server. Id. at col. 6,
`ll. 44-46. When connected to the server, the client application refreshes the
`queue of advertisements to display, and the client application is updated by
`downloading the latest version of the client application software. Id. at col.
`5, ll. 19-24. The client application periodically accesses the server to
`download targeted advertisements. Id. at col. 1, ll. 66 – col. 2, ll. 1. That is,
`an updated copy of the software is transferred to the subscriber’s computer
`upon a request from the subscriber. The client application displays
`advertisements on the subscriber’s computer. Id. at col. 3, ll. 39-42. The
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`client application further maintains subscriber statistics, such as information
`on Internet sites that the subscriber has accessed over a predetermined period
`of time. Id. at col. 4, ll. 18-21. This information is computer usage
`information because information as to which Internet sites the subscriber’s
`computer has accessed is expressly information as to how that computer has
`been used. Furthermore, Guyot describes that the client application
`monitors the activity of input devices to determine subscriber activity. Id. at
`col. 5, ll. 6-10.
`Claim 11 additionally recites “providing a unique identifier to the
`computer, wherein said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over
`said computer network from the computer to said server” and “associating
`said unique identifier with demographic information in a database.” Guyot
`further describes that each subscriber data includes identification
`information, password assigned to the subscriber, and a personal profile for
`the subscriber. Id. at col. 3, ll. 57-61. As discussed above, the personal
`profile information includes demographic information of the subscriber.
`Claim 11 also recites “selecting advertising content for transfer to the
`computer in accordance with the demographic information associated with
`said unique identifier” and “transferring said advertising content from said
`server to the computer for display by said program.” Guyot discloses the
`server manages the advertisements database and provides advertisements to
`the client application that are targeted to each individual subscriber, based
`on the personal profile provided by that subscriber. Id. at col. 1, ll. 60-65.
`Guyot further discloses the client application, when connected to the server,
`refreshes the queue of advertisements to display. Id. at col. 5, ll. 19-24.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Claim 11 lastly recites “periodically acquiring said unique identifier
`and said computer usage information recorded by said software from the
`computer via said computer network” and “associating said computer usage
`information with said demographic information using said unique
`identifier.” Guyot discloses that the client application periodically accesses
`the server and provides subscriber statistics, which include computer usage
`information as discussed above. Id. at col. 1, ll. 66-67; col. 5, ll. 19-24. The
`subscriber statistics are used to further define the subscriber’s personal
`profile, which includes the subscriber’s demographic information. Id. at col.
`3, ll. 57-65; col. 4, ll. 21-23. As such, the computer usage information is
`associated with the demographic information associated with each individual
`subscriber.
`3. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claims 11-14 and 16-19 of the ’314 patent are
`anticipated by Guyot.
`C. Claim 15 – Obvious over Guyot and Robinson
`Petitioner contends that claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Guyot and Robinson. Pet. 36-37. In support of
`this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed or suggested by a
`combination of Guyot and Robinson. In its explanations, Petitioner relies on
`the Declaration of Henry Houh.
`1. Robinson (Ex. 1007)
`Robinson discloses a system for the display of advertising to users of
`an interactive communications medium. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 12-13. The
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`system tracks activities of a subject in an interactive communications
`medium, derives information from the activities, determines a community
`for the subject based on the derived information, and determines which
`advertisements to present to the subject based on the determined community.
`Id. at col. 3, l. 62 – col. 4, l. 6.
`Tracking data can be stored locally on a user’s local computer. Id. at
`col. 7, ll. 26-28. A cookie can be generated and stored on the user’s
`computer. Id. at col. 8, ll. 42-44. The cookie is the only way to associate
`information stored on the central server with that particular user. Id. The
`cookie contains the identifier of the user, and the user ID in the central
`database is updated with tracking information from the cookie. Id. at col.
`10, ll. 11-14.
`2. Analysis
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claim 15 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Guyot and Robinson. Pet. 36-37.
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-14 and 16-19 are anticipated by Guyot.
`Id. at 27-35. As discussed above, claim 11 recites the limitation “providing
`a unique identifier to the computer” and Guyot discloses a unique identifier
`associated to each subscriber subsystem and each subscriber has
`identification information, a password, and a personal profile. Ex. 1006, col.
`3, ll. 18-22; col. 3, ll. 57-61. Claim 15 depends from claim 11 and further
`recites that the limitation of “providing a unique identifier” comprises
`“storing a cookie on the computer.” Guyot, however, does not disclose
`“storing a cookie on the computer.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 341.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Robinson discloses this limitation. Pet. 37.
`Petitioner contends that Robinson describes the use of “cookies to track user
`activity in the context of targeted advertising systems.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 345 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 2, ll. 49-53)). Indeed, Robinson discloses the
`use of a cookie mechanism that ensures that is the only way that information
`is associated to the user. Ex. 1007, col. 8, ll. 41-44.
`Petitioner further contends that a person with ordinary skill in the art
`would be motivated to combine Robinson’s disclosure of a cookie
`mechanism that stores a cookie locally on the user’s computer with Guyot
`for “uniquely identifying a user to enable targeted delivery of advertising.”
`Pet. 37. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Houh, further states that the “use of
`‘cookies’ to track an Internet user’s activity at a server was well known.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 341. According to Dr. Houh, a person with ordinary skill in the
`art would have “immediately recognized the processes shown in Guyot
`could readily be implemented using the name/value or attribute/value format
`of cookies, as they are a natural fit.” Id. ¶ 344. Dr. Houh also states that the
`modification of Guyot to include the use of cookies, as disclosed by
`Robinson, would be routine to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Id. ¶
`348. In other words, Petitioner contends that a combination of the known
`element, i.e., the use of cookies, with methods for tracking a user’s activity
`would yield nothing more than predictable results.
`In light of these contentions, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 15 of the
`’314 patent is unpatentable as obvious over Guyot and Robinson.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`3. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claim 15 of the ’314 patent would have been obvious
`over Guyot and Robinson.
`D. Claims 20-22 – Obvious over Guyot and RFC1635
`Petitioner contends that claims 20-22 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Guyot and RFC. Pet. 37-42. In support
`of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed or suggested by a
`combination of Guyot and RFC. In its explanations, Petitioner relies on the
`Declaration of Henry Houh.
`1. RFC 1635 (Ex. 1022)
`RFC 1635 provides information about how to use the File Transfer
`Protocol (FTP). Ex. 1022, 1. RFC 1635 discloses that FTP is a protocol
`used on the Internet to transfer files from one computer (host) on the Internet
`to another. Id. A user of an FTP program must log in to both hosts using an
`account and password in order to transfer a file from one host to the other.
`Id.
`
`RFC 1635 further describes the use of anonymous FTP. Id. at 2. An
`archive site is a host that acts as a repository for a wealth of information,
`much like a conventional library. Id. The information stored on these
`Internet hosts is made available for external users to transfer to their local
`sites. Id. To provide general access, a special user account called
`“anonymous” is created for the archive site. Id. The user account
`“anonymous” has limited access rights to the archive host. Id. The
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`anonymous user account allows a user to log in using FTP, list the contents
`of a limited set of directories, and retrieve files from the archive site. Id.
`2. Analysis
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 20-22 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Guyot and RFC . Pet. 37-42.
`For example, claim 20 depends from claim 11 and further recites that
`the limitation of “acquiring demographic information” comprises
`requesting said demographic information in response to a
`request from the user to download said software and receiving
`said demographic information from the user prior to providing
`the user with access to said software.
`As discussed above, Petitioner contends that claims 11-14 and 16-19
`are anticipated by Guyot. Pet. 27-35. Claim 11 recites the limitation
`“acquiring demographic information about the user, said demographic
`information including information specifically provided by the user in
`response to a request for said demographic information.” As discussed
`above, Guyot discloses that the server stores a subscriber’s personal profile,
`where the personal profile “is preferably obtained by having the subscriber
`provide answers to a questionnaire.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 51-65. Subscriber
`statistics, such as the advertisements distributed to the subscriber and the
`number of times each advertisement has been displayed to the subscriber,
`are used to define further the subscriber’s personal profile. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`15-23.
`Petitioner, however, acknowledges that Guyot does not disclose
`expressly that demographic information is received prior to providing the
`user with access to the software. Pet. 39 (see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 363).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Petitioner argues that RFC 1635 discloses receiving demographic
`
`information prior to providing the user with access to software. Id. at 39-40.
`Petitioner argues that RFC 1635 discloses an anonymous file transfer
`protocol (FTP) process. Id. RFC 1635 discloses that a user is prompted for
`a password, and upon submitting a password, the user is granted access to
`transfer files from the FTP server. Ex. 1022, 2.
`Petitioner further contends that a person with ordinary skill in the art
`would have found it obvious to prompt the user for information prior to
`providing the user access to other information, as demonstrated by RFC
`1635, prior to providing the client application software of Guyot and such a
`modification would have been an obvious design choice. Pet. 39-40 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 369).
`In light of these contentions, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 20 of the
`’314 patent is unpatentable as obvious over Guyot and Robinson.
`3. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claims 20-22 of the ’314 patent would have been
`obvious over Guyot and Robinson.
`E. Claims 11-22 – Remaining Grounds
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-14 and 16-19 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Shaw. Pet. 10-20. Petitioner
`contends that claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over Shaw and Robinson. Id. at 20-21. Petitioner contends that claims 20-
`22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shaw and
`RFC 1635. Id. at 21-27. Petitioner contends that claim 20 is unpatentable
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Guyot. Id. at 35-36. Petitioner
`contends that claims 11-19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`anticipated by Robinson. Id. at 42-52. Petitioner contends that claims 11,
`16, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Robinson. Id. at 52-56. Petitioner contends that claims 20-22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson and RFC
`1635. Id. at 56-60.
`However, having reviewed these grounds of unpatentability asserted
`by Petitioner, we exercise our discretion and determine that they are
`redundant to the ground of unpatentability on which we institute review for
`the same claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 11-22 of
`the ’314 patent.
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`any challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to the following proposed grounds:
`1.
`Anticipation of claims 11-14 and 16-19 by Guyot; and
`2.
`Obviousness of claim 15 over Guyot and Robinson.
`3.
`Obviousness of claims 20-22 over Guyot and RFC 1635.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds raised in the Petition are
`authorized for inter partes review.
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 3:00 PM, Eastern Time on May 6, 2014; the parties are
`directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide5 for guidance in preparing
`for the initial conference call, and should come prepared to discuss any
`proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions
`the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`5 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765-66 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00039
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott M. Border
`Sidley Austin LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`
`21
`
`
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
