Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 36
`Entered: March 31, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE, INC., MATCH.COM LLC, and PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014–00038
`Case IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`_______________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`Twitter-Google Exhibit 1036
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Google, Inc. (“Google”) filed a Petition to institute inter partes review of
`
`claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (Ex. 1001, “the ’314
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). B.E. Technology, LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a
`
`preliminary response. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted inter partes
`
`review on April 9, 2014, as to claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ʼ314
`
`patent—claims 11, 12, 13, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
`
`Logan1 and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Logan and Robinson.2
`
`Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`
`After institution of the inter partes review, Match.com LLC (“Match.com”)
`
`and People Media, Inc. (“People Media”) filed a Petition and a Motion to Join the
`
`inter partes review. IPR2014-00699, Papers 1, 4. We granted the motion and
`
`joined Google, Match.com, and People Media (collectively, “Petitioner”) in the
`
`inter partes review. Paper 22.
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 25, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a
`
`Reply (Paper 27, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 26,
`
`“Mot. to Amend”), Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend, and Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition.
`
`Oral hearing was held on December 10, 2014, and the hearing transcript has
`
`been entered in the record as Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 (Ex. 1002) (“Logan”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,014 (Ex. 1003) (“Robinson”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ʼ314
`
`patent are unpatentable. Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend is denied.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’314 patent is the subject of several district court
`
`cases: B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-2830-JPM (W.D.
`
`Tenn.), filed on October 9, 2012; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02833 (W.D. Tenn.), filed on September 21, 2012; and B.E.
`
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02834 (W.D. Tenn.), filed on
`
`September 21, 2012. Pet. 1; IPR2014-00699, Paper 1, 2.
`
`The ’314 patent is also the subject of Microsoft Corp. v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., IPR2014-00039 (PTAB Apr. 9, 2014), Facebook, Inc. v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., IPR2014-00052 (PTAB Apr. 9, 2014), Facebook, Inc. v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., IPR2014-00053 (PTAB Apr. 9, 2014), Match.com LLC v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., IPR2014-00698 (PTAB June 13, 2014), Google, Inc. v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., IPR2014-000738 (PTAB June 18, 2014), Google, Inc. v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., IPR2014-00743 (PTAB June 18, 2014), and Google, Inc. v. B.E.
`
`Technology, L.L.C., IPR2014-00744 (PTAB June 18, 2014). IPR2014-00738 has
`
`been joined with IPR2014-00039, IPR2014-00743 has been joined with IPR2014-
`
`00052, and IPR2014-00698 and IPR2014-00744 have been joined with IPR2014-
`
`00053.
`
`C. The ʼ314 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`(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:
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a block diagram of a system distributing advertisements
`
`over the Internet. Id. at col. 6, ll. 21–22. ADM server 22 is accessible by client
`
`computers 40 over Internet 20, where client computers 40 have the client software
`
`application installed. Id. at col. 8, ll. 32–35. ADM server has associated with it
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`Ad Database 44 and User/Demographics Database 46. Id. at col. 8, ll. 38–43. Ad
`
`Database 44 stores banner advertising that is provided to client computers 40. Id.
`
`User/Demographics Database 46 stores demographic information used in targeting
`
`advertising downloaded to individual client computers 40. Id. at col. 8, ll. 55–57.
`
`When a user first accesses the client software application for the purposes of
`
`downloading and installing the application, the user submits demographic
`
`information that is used to determine what advertising is provided to the user. Id.
`
`at col. 8, ll. 57–62. The demographic information is submitted by the user by
`
`entering the information into a form provided to the 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. The 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.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent.
`
`Independent claim 11 and dependent claim 15 are illustrative of the claims at issue
`
` 5
`
`
`
`and follow:
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`
`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,
`the user, said
`information about
`acquiring demographic
`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 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
`information with said
`associating said computer usage
`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.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`The Board will interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they
`
`appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *7–8 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
`
`AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, 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. “providing a unique identifier to the computer”
`
`Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “providing a unique identifier to
`
`the computer.” Petitioner argues that the ʼ314 patent discloses that the server
`
`“assigns a unique ID to the user” and “[t]he user ID that is stored along with the
`
`demographic data is used to anonymously identify the user.” Pet. 6 (quoting Ex.
`
`1001, col. 17, ll. 13–14, 29–31). Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “unique identifier” is “information that uniquely identifies a user.”
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 91).
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s construction of “unique identifier” is
`
`based on an incomplete reading of the ʼ314 patent specification and completely
`
`ignores the actual claim language. PO Resp. 5–10. Patent Owner specifically
`
`argues that the claim language makes no mention of “user” with reference to
`
`“unique identifier.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner argues that the ʼ314 patent
`
`specification discloses that the anonymity of the user can be further “accomplished
`
`by assigning the user ID to the particular copy of the client software application
`
`downloaded by the user” and, therefore, the user ID is assigned to the software and
`
`will not identify the user. Id. at 7 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 31–34). Patent
`
`Owner further asserts that the ʼ314 patent discloses that the user ID can be
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`included in a cookie, associated with demographic data of a user when establishing
`
`a new account, or associated with a user login. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 17,
`
`ll. 34–41, col. 18, ll. 1–20). Patent Owner concludes that, because the ʼ314 patent
`
`discusses the “unique identifier” in different manners, the meaning of “unique
`
`identifier” should not be limited to “information that uniquely identifies a user.”
`
`Id. at 8–9.
`
`Although we are persuaded by Patent Owner that the scope of “unique
`
`identifier” is not limited to identifying a user, we also are persuaded by Petitioner
`
`that the meaning of “unique identifier” encompasses information that uniquely
`
`identifies a user. Claim 11 recites “providing a unique identifier to the computer”
`
`and the “identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said computer
`
`network.” Claim 11 does not limit the system, process, or entity that “provides”
`
`the unique identifier. Claim 11 further only requires that the “unique identifier”
`
`identifies “information” that is sent over the computer network. Patent Owner
`
`agrees that claim 11 does not limit what the “information” is. See Tr. 32:21–24.
`
`Patent Owner also agrees that the discussion of “unique identifier” in the ʼ314
`
`patent specification does not limit “unique identifier” to mean “information that
`
`uniquely identifies a user.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner concludes that the ʼ314
`
`patent specification provides examples and context for the term “unique identifier,”
`
`but does not limit the scope of this term. See Id. at 7–8.
`
`Accordingly, we determine that the “information” identified by the “unique
`
`identifier” can include user information. That is, the “unique identifier” can
`
`include a user ID that uniquely identifies information sent over a computer
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`network as information associated3 with a particular user. This construction is
`
`consistent with the several examples provided in the ʼ314 patent specification. See
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 13–14, 29–41, col. 18, ll. 1–20. Therefore, we determine that
`
`the limitations of “providing a unique identifier to the computer” and the
`
`“identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said computer network” to
`
`mean any system, process, or entity providing a unique identifier to the computer,
`
`where the unique identifier identifies any information that is sent over the
`
`computer network. Although our construction is broader than Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction, our construction also encompasses Petitioner’s construction
`
`that the “unique identifier” is “information that uniquely identifies a user.”
`
`2. “demographic information”
`
`Petitioner proposes that the term “demographic information” means
`
`“collected characteristic information about a user that does not identify the user.”
`
`Pet. 6–7. Patent Owner does not provide a construction for this term. We agree
`
`with Petitioner and construe “demographic information” to mean “collected
`
`characteristic information about a user that does not identify the user.” Petitioner
`
`points to the context of “demographic information” as used in the ʼ314 patent
`
`specification to include time zone, locale, and client hardware. Id. (citing Ex.
`
`1001, col. 3, ll. 8–10). We agree that Petitioner’s proposed definition for
`
`3 Patent Owner also presents arguments that the term “associating” cannot be used
`as a substitute for “providing” and that information is associated “with” a user and
`not associated “to” a user. PO Resp. 17–20. Although we agree with Patent
`Owner’s arguments that the term “providing” cannot be substituted for
`“associating” and that information is associated “with” a user and not “to a user,”
`we do not find these arguments impact our construction of the limitations
`“providing a unique identifier to the computer” and the “identifier uniquely
`identifies information sent over said computer network.” We, however, have
`considered these arguments in determining our claim construction.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`“demographic information” is both reasonable and consistent with its usage in the
`
`ʼ314 patent specification. Id.
`
`3. “software”
`
`Claim 11 recites “providing the user with download access to computer
`
`software that . . . records computer usage information.” Petitioner contends that
`
`although the Specification defines “software application” to mean “a program and
`
`associated libraries and other files” (Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 12–13), the broader term
`
`“software” includes “one or more programs.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 95–96;
`
`Ex. 1007, 4). Patent Owner does not provide a construction for this term. We
`
`agree with Petitioner’s proposed construction. The ʼ314 patent specification
`
`specifically defines a “software application” to include only a single program,
`
`whereas the claims recite the broader term “software,” which implicitly must
`
`encompass more than a single program or application. Accordingly, we construe
`
`“software” to mean one or more programs and their associated libraries and files.
`
`4. “periodically”
`
`Claim 11 recites “software that . . . periodically requests additional
`
`advertising content” and “periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said
`
`computer usage information.” Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of
`
`“periodically” means “at regular or irregular time intervals.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex.
`
`1004 ¶¶ 93–94). Patent Owner does not provide a construction for this term. The
`
`ʼ314 patent specification does not provide a special definition for “periodically,”
`
`and the claims do not limit further the scope of “periodically.” We agree with
`
`Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “periodically” includes “recurring
`
`from time to time,” and, under the broadest reasonable construction, means “at
`
`regular or irregular time intervals.” Pet. 7. Accordingly, we construe
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`“periodically” to mean “recurring from time to time, at regular or irregular time
`
`intervals.”
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Anticipation of Claims 11, 12, 13, 18, and 20 by Logan
`
`1. Logan (Ex. 1002)
`
`Logan discloses a system for selectively distributing personalized
`
`information and entertainment programming to subscribers. Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 7–
`
`10. The system utilizes a library consisting of a large number of programs created
`
`and maintained by a server subsystem, and a remotely located subscriber/player
`
`subsystem that connects to the server subsystem. Id. at col. 1, ll. 39–52. The
`
`server subsystem accepts a subscriber’s information regarding the subscriber’s
`
`general interests, characteristics, and preferences. Id. at col. 2, ll. 1–6. The
`
`subscriber characterization data is matched periodically against stored program
`
`segments to identify program segments of significant potential appeal to that
`
`subscriber. Id.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that Logan discloses every limitation of claim 11. Pet. 13–
`
`32. Petitioner provides a detailed claim chart that maps each claim limitation to a
`
`disclosure in Logan that meets the claim limitation. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that (a) Logan does not disclose a “unique identifier,”
`
`(b) Logan does not disclose “providing a unique identifier to the computer,”
`
`(c) Logan does not disclose “selection of advertising content for transfer to the
`
`computer in accordance with the demographic information,” and (d) the adoption
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`of the “broadest reasonable construction” rule exceeds the PTO’s rule making
`
`authority.4 PO Resp. 5–38.
`
`a. “unique identifier”
`
`Claim 11 recites “providing a unique identifier.” Petitioner argues that
`
`Logan describes a subscriber field that contains the “AccountNo” of the subscriber.
`
`Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 26, ll. 9–22). Based on Petitioner’s claim
`
`construction that “unique identifier” encompasses “information that uniquely
`
`identifies a user,” Petitioner argues that Logan’s “AccountNo” describes the
`
`claimed “unique identifier.” Pet. 21; see Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 91).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Logan discloses an “AccountNo,” which is not the
`
`same as a “unique identifier.” PO Resp. 6–15. Patent Owner specifically argues
`
`that the claim limitation does not make any mention of a “user” and the term
`
`“unique identifier” is not limited to an identifier that identifies a user. Id.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that Logan fails to disclose a “unique
`
`identifier,” because the claim construction of “unique identifier” provided by
`
`Petitioner incorrectly limits “unique identifier” to identifying a user. Id.
`
`Petitioner responds that the ʼ314 patent specification provides an example
`
`where the “unique identifier” identifies both a user and information, and, therefore,
`
`Petitioner’s construction of “unique identifier” is consistent with the ʼ314 patent
`
`specification. See Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 16, ll. 17–24) (“[S]ince client
`
`software application 10 communicates with server 22 from time to time and can
`
`4 Patent Owner also argues that the testimony submitted by Petitioner from Mr.
`Gray is not in the form of an affidavit and, therefore, is not compliant under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53. PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner, however, did not serve objections
`to this testimony within ten days of the institution of trial in this proceeding and
`did not file a motion to exclude this testimony. Tr. 41:15–20. Accordingly, Patent
`Owner has withdrawn the objection to Mr. Gray’s testimony. Id. at 42:5–9.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`report back computer usage information as well as information concerning the
`
`display of banners, this information can be associated with the user’s demographic
`
`information (by way of their unique ID).” (emphasis omitted)). Petitioner further
`
`responds that Logan discloses a “usage log” that is indexed by a subscriber field
`
`that includes the “AccountNo” of the subscriber. Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1002,
`
`col. 8, ll. 10–18, col. 26, ll. 9–23). Petitioner also responds that the “AccountNo”
`
`identifies the subscriber and identifies computer usage information whenever the
`
`“usage log” is uploaded from the computer to the server. Id. (citing Ex. 1002,
`
`col. 8, ll. 10–18, col. 21, ll. 38–43).
`
`We agree with Petitioner. As discussed above, although we agree with
`
`Patent Owner that neither the claims nor the ’314 patent specification limits the
`
`scope of “unique identifier” to identifying a user, we also agree with Petitioner that
`
`the meaning of “unique identifier” includes information that identifies a user. See
`
`Section I.E.1. The limitation of “providing a unique identifier to the computer”
`
`means any system, process, or entity that provides a unique identifier to the
`
`computer, where the unique identifier identifies any information that is sent over
`
`the computer network. See id. As also discussed above, Petitioner’s narrower
`
`construction of “unique identifier” as “information that uniquely identifies a user”
`
`is encompassed by the broadest reasonable construction that is consistent with the
`
`ʼ314 patent specification.
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner that Logan discloses a “usage log,” which
`
`includes computer usage information, and the “usage log” is uploaded from the
`
`computer to the server. Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 8, ll. 10–18). Logan
`
`further describes that the “usage log” is indexed by a “subscriber” field, which
`
`contains the “AccountNo” of the subscriber. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, col. 26, ll. 9–23).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`Thus, when the “usage log” is uploaded from the computer to the server, both the
`
`“subscriber” field and the “AccountNo” identify the information sent over the
`
`computer network. That is, both the “subscriber” field and the “AccountNo”
`
`identify a particular subscriber with the usage information sent over the computer
`
`network. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Logan discloses a “unique
`
`identifier” and “providing a unique identifier to the computer.”
`
`b. “providing a unique identifier to the computer”
`
`Patent Owner further contends that Logan fails to disclose “providing a
`
`unique identifier.” PO Resp. 15–20. Patent Owner specifically contends that the
`
`ʼ314 patent specification discloses that the computer “receiv[es] an assigned ID
`
`from the server” and the Petitioner fails to identify any receipt. PO Resp. 15
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 8:13). Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has
`
`relied on an unsound inherency argument, because Petitioner argues that “the
`
`user’s computer must necessarily have been provided with the AccountNo prior to
`
`this upload step,” and because Mr. Gray testifies that “one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would recognize that the server necessarily provided this AccountNo to the
`
`computer prior to the upload process (e.g., during the initial download process at
`
`Step 207).” Id. at 15–16 (citing Pet. 21; Ex. 1004 ¶ 111) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Patent Owner argues that the reliance on inherency is improper because various
`
`alternatives existed at the time, such as sending the “AccountNo” to the subscriber
`
`by “snail mail,” where the server would not be sending the “AccountNo” to the
`
`subscriber computer. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21).
`
`Petitioner responds that the claims do not require that the computer
`
`“receiv[es] an assigned ID from the server.” Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner further
`
`responds that in the examples provided by Patent Owner where the subscriber, and
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`not the subscriber’s computer, receives the “AccountNo,” “the subscriber would
`
`still have to provide the AccountNo to the player 103 in order for the player 103 to
`
`upload the usage logs.” Id. at 8.
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner. As discussed above, we construe the
`
`limitation “providing a unique identifier” to mean any system, process, or entity
`
`providing a unique identifier to the computer, where the unique identifier identifies
`
`any information that is sent over the computer network. See Section I.E.1.
`
`Although the ʼ314 patent specification describes that the computer “receives an
`
`assigned ID from the server,” the claims merely require “providing a unique
`
`identifier,” and we see no reason to import this receiving feature from the ʼ314
`
`patent specification into the claims. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that the limitation of “providing a unique identifier” requires that the
`
`computer “receiv[es] an assigned ID from the server.”
`
`Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the limitation “providing a unique
`
`identifier to the computer” does not require that the server provides the “unique
`
`identifier.” Pet. Reply 7. As discussed above in our claim construction, any
`
`system, process, or entity can provide a unique identifier. See Section I.E.1. We
`
`see no reason to limit the scope of this limitation such that the server must provide
`
`the computer with the “unique identifier.” Accordingly, the claim limitation is met
`
`even if the subscriber manually provides the computer with the “AccountNo” after
`
`receiving the “AccountNo,” based on Patent Owner’s various examples. See PO
`
`Resp. 16. As such, we agree with Petitioner that Logan discloses “providing a
`
`unique identifier to the computer.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`
`c. “selection of advertising content for transfer to the computer in
`accordance with the demographic information”
`
`Claim 11 recites “selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer
`
`in accordance with the demographic information.” Petitioner argues that Logan
`
`discloses identifying and inserting advertising segments into Schedule Table 307,
`
`which is transferred to player 103. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 16, ll. 63–67,
`
`col. 24, ll. 2–6, Fig. 4). Petitioner further argues that all scheduled advertisements
`
`are prioritized based on matching algorithms that incorporate a subscriber’s
`
`personal characteristics, such as age, sex, marital status, and size of household.
`
`Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 25, ll. 8–10, col. 25, ll. 15–17).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Logan fails to describes this limitation because
`
`Logan describes selecting advertisements based on “selections and preferences
`
`made by (or inferred for) the user as specified in the subscriber data and usage log
`
`database 143” and, therefore, Logan does not describe selecting advertisements
`
`based on demographic information. PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 5,
`
`ll. 33–36) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner specifically argues that Logan
`
`describes that advertisements are selected based on interests, and although a
`
`demographics matching function exists, demographics are not used in the selection
`
`of advertisements. Id.; Tr. 25:9–26:4. Patent Owner argues that Logan discloses
`
`calculating a “DemographicWeight,” based on demographic information, that is
`
`used to “prioritize” already scheduled advertisements, but is not used in the
`
`“selection of advertising content . . . in accordance with demographic information.”
`
`PO Resp. 22–23, 33–34.
`
`Petitioner responds that Logan is directed to a targeted advertising system
`
`and discloses “selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in
`
`accordance with the demographic information.” Pet. Reply 10–13. Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`specifically argues that Logan discloses a “DemographicMatch” function, where
`
`the “DemographicMatch” function “returns a value based on an[] advertiser
`
`specified relationship based on the subscriber’s personal [characteristics],”
`
`including age, sex, marital status, and size of household. Pet. Reply 12 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 25, ll. 8–9). Petitioner also argues that Logan discloses a
`
`“DemographicWeight” value, which indicates the “relative importance of
`
`demographic values derived by the DemographicMatch function and the value
`
`returned by InterestMatch.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1002, col. 25, ll. 12–14). Petitioner
`
`concludes that the matching algorithm ultimately compares the subscriber’s
`
`characteristics with the target audience defined by the advertisement record to
`
`determine which of the advertisements to insert into Schedule Table 307, which
`
`subsequently is transferred to player 103. Id. (citing col. 16, l. 65 – col. 17, l. 1,
`
`col. 25, ll. 15–25).
`
`We agree with Petitioner. Logan discloses that program, advertising, and
`
`announcement segments are used to form Schedule Table 307. Ex. 1002, col. 17,
`
`ll. 4–10. Program segments are selected for inclusion in Schedule Table 307 by
`
`comparing the contents of Programs Table 303, Subscribers Table 313, and
`
`Advertisements Table 311. Id. at col. 20, ll. 32–35. Program segments can contain
`
`advertising, entertainment, news, or other content. Id. at col. 24, ll. 62–66.
`
`Program Table 303 contains Program_Segment records that describe the nature of
`
`each programming, advertising, and announcement segment in the library. Id. at
`
`col. 17, ll. 11–15. A Program_Segment includes a Subjects field that indicates a
`
`value for predetermined subject matter categories, allowing each programming
`
`segment to be matched against like codes specified as being subjects of interest by
`
`the subscriber as well as codes indicating subjects to which advertised goods and
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014–00038
`IPR2014–00699
`Patent 6,628,314
`
`services may relate. Id. at col. 19, ll. 11–18. The Program_Segment includes
`
`Youngest and Oldest fields that contain an indication of the age range to which a
`
`program segment should appeal. Id. at col. 19, ll. 48–50. Similarly, the byte
`
`values Female and Male allow the entry of an estimate of the relative interest of a
`
`program to each of the sexes. Id. at col. 19, ll. 50–55.
`
`Subscriber records include fields for birthdate, sex, marital status, and
`
`household size. Id. at col. 20, ll. 46–49. This information is used in better
`
`selecting program material of possible interest to the subscriber. Id. at col. 21,
`
`ll. 12–17. Advertisement records include fields for DemographicMatch and
`
`DemographicWeight. Id. at col. 20, ll. 56–59.
`
`Program segments that are included in Schedule Table 307 are identified by
`
`matching the attributes of the subscriber as defined in the Subscriber record
`
`(birthdate, sex, marital status, and household size) against the descriptions
`
`contained in the Program_Segment records (youngest, oldest, male, female,
`
`houselow, househigh) to identify programs and categories of programs likely to be
`
`of interest to a subscriber having those attributes. Id. at col. 22, ll. 64–67, col. 23,
`
`ll. 29–36. This relationship between the attributes of the subscriber and
`
`Program_Segment records is specified by the advertiser-supplied function
`
`DemographicMatc