Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`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
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
