throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: April 6, 2015
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review 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 reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,771,290 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’290 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`Twitter-Google Exhibit 1066
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, filed a corrected Petition for inter
`partes review of claims 1–3 of the ’290 patent. Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner, B.E. Technology, L.L.C., did not file a Preliminary Response. On
`April 9, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes
`review for claims 1–3 of the ’290 patent on the ground of anticipation by
`Kikinis1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Paper 12.
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 27, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 29, “Reply”). On December 11, 2014, we held a
`consolidated hearing for five inter partes reviews involving the ’290 patent.2
`A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’290 patent is at issue in B.E. Technology,
`L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-02829 (W.D. Tenn.), and numerous
`other district court cases filed by Patent Owner against other defendants.
`Pet. 1; Paper 7, 1–3 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices). As noted, the
`’290 patent is the subject of four other inter partes reviews: IPR2014-
`00029, IPR2014-00031, IPR2014-00033, and IPR2014-00044.
`
`
`1 PCT International Publication Number WO 97/09682, published Mar. 13,
`1997 (Ex. 1005) (“Kikinis”).
`2 Sony Mobile Commc’ns (USA) Inc. v. B.E. Tech., L.L.C., Case IPR2014-
`00029; Google Inc. v. B.E. Tech., L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00031; Google Inc.
`v. B.E. Tech., L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00033; Microsoft Corp. v. B.E. Tech.,
`L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00040; Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. B.E. Tech.,
`L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00044.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`C. The ’290 Patent
`The ’290 patent describes a system that provides remote storage of
`user-specific files and resources that can be accessed over a network, such as
`the Internet. Ex. 1001, 5:43–50, 12:45–50. The disclosed system includes
`client computers, each running a client software application that provides
`access via a network to an advertising and data management (ADM) server.
`Id. at 11:42–49. The server includes a user database that stores a user profile
`and a user library for each user. Id. at 12:45–13:12. The user profile is
`accessed by the client software application using a unique identifier for the
`user via a login. Id. at 12:52–56. The user profile may contain user-specific
`customized settings for the operating system used by the client computer.
`Id. at 12:56–58. Additionally, the user profile may contain “bookmarks,
`shortcuts, and other such links to files and information resources accessible
`via” the network. Id. at 12:67–13:3. The user library “enables the user to
`store files (documents, executable programs, email messages, audio clips,
`video clip, or other files) that can then be accessed from any client
`computer.” Id. at 13:4–7. By storing user profiles and user libraries on the
`server, users “can have world-wide access to their preferences, addresses,
`bookmarks, email, and files without having to physically transport them
`from one place to another.” Id. at 13:9–12.
`The ’290 patent further describes a user interface on a client
`computer, provided by a graphical user interface (GUI) module. Id. at
`13:41–43. The user interface comprises an application window with
`selectable items such as icons. Id. at 13:43–53. As shown in Figure 5b, the
`application window may include “icons that represent various files and links
`to information resources.” Id. at 15:48–53.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`Figure 5b of the ’290 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 5b illustrates an application window with icons
`representing files and links to information resources.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`The application window in Figure 5b includes a library icon, which,
`when selected, provides a display as shown in Figure 5c, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 5c illustrates an application window
`displaying files in a user library.
`
`
`
`The display in Figure 5c provides a list of all files contained in a user
`library. Id. at 15:55–56. From this window, “the user can access any of the
`files contained in his or her user library.” Id. at 15:56–57.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges all claims (claims 1–3) of the ’290 patent.
`Independent claims 1 and 2 are illustrative:
`
`A computer-readable memory for use by a client
`1.
`
`computer to provide a user of the computer with an integrated,
`customized, graphical user interface to a plurality of computer
`resources, the computer-readable memory comprising:
`
`a non-volatile data storage device;
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device
`
`in a computer-readable format;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to display a
`graphical user interface comprising an application window
`separated into a number of regions;
`
`a first one of said regions including a number of
`graphical objects, at least some of which are each representative
`of a different software application and are selectable by the user
`via an input device, wherein said program is operable upon
`selection of one of said graphical objects to initiate execution of
`the software application associated therewith;
`
`a second one of said regions including a number of user-
`selectable items, at least some of which are each associated
`with a different data set, said data sets each comprising a
`number of links to different information resources, wherein said
`program is operable in response to selection of at least one of
`said items to provide the user with access to its associated data
`set;
`said program including a login module that is operable
`
`upon execution to identify the user of the computer; and
`
`said program being operable following execution of said
`login module to provide an identification of the user to the
`server and to receive from the server a user profile containing
`one or more user data sets and user links to information
`resources, with said program further being operable to display
`in one of said regions a user-selectable item for each of said
`user data sets and each of said user links.
`
`A computer-readable memory for use by a client
`2.
`
`computer in conjunction with a server that is accessible by the
`client computer via a network, the server storing a user profile
`and user library for each of a number of different users, with the
`user library containing one or more files and the user profile
`containing at least one user link that provides a[] link to one of
`the files in the user library, the computer-readable memory
`comprising:
`
`a non-volatile data storage device;
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device
`
`in a computer-readable format;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to display a
`graphical user interface comprising an application window
`having a number of user-selectable items displayed therein,
`wherein each of said items has associated with it a link to an
`information resource accessible via the network and wherein
`said program is operable upon execution and in response to
`selection by a user of one of said items to access the associated
`information resource over the network;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to receive
`from [the] server one of the user profiles and to display a user-
`selectable item for user links contained within the user profile,
`said program further being operable in response to selection by
`a user of one of the user links to access the file associated with
`the selected user link from the user library associated with the
`received user profile.
`Id. at 38:30–40:11.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent 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).
`Patent Owner contends the Board’s adoption of the “broadest reasonable
`construction” standard exceeded the Office’s rulemaking authority and
`requests that we construe the claims in this case in a manner consistent with
`claim construction that would be applied in the district court. PO Resp. 43–
`45. Recently, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit held that “Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard in enacting the [America Invents Act].” In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court further
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`held that even if the broadest reasonable interpretation standard were not
`incorporated into the inter partes statutory provisions, the Office properly
`adopted the standard by regulation under the rulemaking authority provided
`by 35 U.S.C. § 316. Id. at 1282. Accordingly, we construe the claims in this
`proceeding using the broadest reasonable construction standard.
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different
`from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`1. Claim Terms Defined in the ’290 Patent
`The ’290 patent recites explicit definitions for many terms. In the
`table below, we construe claim terms relevant to our decision in accordance
`with the definitions provided in the ’290 patent, which are set forth in the
`written description with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`Claim Term
`
`data set
`
`file
`
`information resource
`
`link
`
`non-volatile data storage
`device
`
`profile
`
`Construction
`“A group of data items; for example, links,
`keywords, or entries in an address book.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:18–19.
`“Any digital item, including information,
`documents,
`applications,
`audio/video
`components, and the like, that is stored in
`memory and
`is accessible via a file
`allocation
`table or other pointing or
`indexing structure.” Ex. 1001, 4:25–28.
`“A source of information stored on a
`server or other computer that is accessible
`to other computers over a network.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:33–35.
`“A data item that identifies the location or
`address of a program or
`information
`resource.” Ex. 1001, 4:39–40.3
`“A memory device that retains computer-
`readable data or programming code in the
`absence of externally-supplied power,
`including such things as a hard disk or a
`floppy disk, a compact disk read-only
`memory (CDROM), digital versatile disk
`[(]DVD), magneto-optical disk, and so
`forth.” Ex. 1001, 4:46–51.
`“User-specific information relating to an
`individual using a computer.” Ex. 1001,
`4:52–53.
`
`2. Region
`Claim 1 recites “an application window separated into a number of
`regions,” and provides further limitations regarding first and second regions.
`
`3 The ’290 patent further provides: “A URL [i.e., a uniform resource
`locator] is a link, as is a path and filename of an information resource.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:40–41. We consider these to be examples of a “link,” not part of
`the definition, and, therefore, not part of our construction of the claim term.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`Ex. 1001, 38:40–56. The ’290 patent does not provide an explicit definition
`for “region.” Patent Owner submits that “region” should be construed as “a
`non-overlapping part of an application window that is distinct or separate
`from other parts of the application window wherein each part is
`characterized by the presence of related functions or features that are
`different from the functions or features of another part.” PO Resp. 20.
`Petitioner responds that this construction is unreasonable and inconsistent
`with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term.
`Reply 11.
`In support of its proposed construction, Patent Owner cites a passage
`from the written description describing one embodiment of an application
`window with a number of regions, including a title bar, a pull-down menu, a
`toolbar of menu icons, a URL text field, a toolbar containing application
`icons, a banner advertising region, and a toolbar containing bookmark
`category icons. PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:43–58). According to
`Patent Owner, the described regions are “separate or distinct,” with each
`region being “characterized by related functions or features.” Id. at 22.
`We are not persuaded that “region” should be interpreted as narrowly
`as Patent Owner suggests. An ordinary meaning of “region” is a “large,
`usually continuous segment of a surface or space; area.”4 Petitioner’s
`expert, Dr. Henry Houh, testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand a “region” to be “an area on the screen,” which is
`consistent with that ordinary meaning. Ex. 1017, 136:13–22. The portion of
`the written description relied upon by Patent Owner does not define the
`claim term “region,” but merely provides examples of regions in one
`
`4 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1520 (3d ed. 1992).
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`embodiment of an application window. Further, Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction depends on Patent Owner’s own characterization of those
`examples, rather than any language in the ’290 patent itself. Thus, Patent
`Owner has not shown that “region” should be given any meaning other than
`its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable construction of
`“region,” in the context of the ’290 patent, is simply an “area.”
`
`3. User library
`Claim 2 recites a “server storing a . . . user library for each of a
`number of different users, with the user library containing one or more
`files.” Ex. 1001, 39:3–5 (emphasis added). Claim 2 further provides that
`files in the user library are accessed via user links in a user profile.
`Id. at 39:6–7, 40:8–11. Although the ’290 patent does not provide an
`explicit definition of “user library,” it provides the following description:
`“[T]he User Database 46 of ADM server 22 can include a user library that
`enables the user to store files (documents, executable programs, email
`messages, audio clips, video clips, or other files) that can then be accessed
`from any client computer 40.” Id. at 13:3–7 (emphasis added). The written
`description of the ’290 patent further explains that a user library is “used to
`store [a user’s] individual files and resources that the user wishes to be able
`to access from anywhere on the network.” Id. at 5:56–58.
`An ordinary meaning of “library” in the context of electronic
`document storage is a “collection of software or data files,”5 and, thus, a
`“user library” is a “collection of a user’s software or data files.” In view of
`this ordinary meaning and the claims and written description of the
`
`
`5 See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 309 (5th ed. 2002).
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`’290 patent, the broadest reasonable construction of “user library” consistent
`with its use in the ’290 patent is “a collection of an individual’s stored files.”
`
`B. Asserted Ground of Anticipation by Kikinis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kikinis, relying on declaration testimony of Dr.
`Houh. Pet. 7–18 (citing Ex. 1003). Patent Owner responds, relying on
`declaration testimony of Dr. Cory Plock. PO Resp. 10–43 (citing
`Ex. 2001).6 Having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance
`of the evidence that claims 1–3 are anticipated by Kikinis.
`
`1. Summary of Kikinis
`Kikinis describes a document management system that provides for
`remote storage and retrieval of electronic documents. Ex. 1005, Abstract,
`1:7–9. Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates Kikinis’s electronic document
`system.
`
`
`6 The Patent Owner Response erroneously cites Exhibit 2002 as Dr. Plock’s
`Declaration. Dr. Plock’s Declaration has been entered as Exhibit 2001,
`whereas Dr. Plock’s curriculum vitae has been entered as Exhibit 2002. We
`interpret all citations to Exhibit 2002 in the Patent Owner Response to be
`citations to Exhibit 2001.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, Kikinis discloses user station 53 with a web browser
`that allows a user to access, via the Internet, servers provided by a remote
`Internet service provider (ISP), labeled “User’s Provider” in the figure.
`Id. at 6:11–14, 6:24–26. In the embodiment shown in Figure 2, the remote
`ISP includes web server 67 and a set of electronic document servers 69, all
`of which have access to the Internet. Id. at 6:24–27.
`Each electronic document server 69 runs software that supports a
`specific application. Id. at 6:27–29. As shown in Figure 2, examples
`include e-mail program 79, fax program 81, voice-mail program 85, and
`other programs 87, which provide access to other electronic documents.
`Id. at 6:29–31. Web server 67 stores a set of databases 71, each of which is
`associated with a different user. Id. at 6:32–35. Each database set 71
`includes home page 73 that is individualized to a specific user and provides
`links to various lower-order databases maintained by electronic document
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`server 69 for each user, such as e-mail database 89, fax database 91, voice-
`mail database 93, and other electronic documents in database 95. Id. at
`6:35–7:4. A user may be required to provide a password and user name to
`gain access to home page 73 of an electronic document database. Id. at
`8:21–24.
`A user who wishes to access electronic documents stored on an
`electronic document server invokes the web browser at a user station. Id. at
`7:17–29. Figure 3 of Kikinis, reproduced below, illustrates a series of web
`browser windows for accessing electronic documents.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, a user enters a URL for his home page in
`field 113. Id. at 7:29–31. Home page 73 is retrieved from the remote server
`and displayed as a graphical user interface to data and other web
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`destinations, with on-screen links to the user’s electronic documents stored
`on the electronic document server. Id. at 7:31–8:1. For example, as shown
`in Figure 3, home page 73 provides links to the user’s voice-mail
`(button 117), e-mail (button 118), faxes (button 120), and other electronic
`documents (button 122). Id. at 8:2–13. A user also may use home page 73
`to link to other databases, “such as a personal multi-lingual dictionary
`featuring pronunciation, a spelling checker, or a thesaurus; or indeed, almost
`any other sort of digital data or control routines.” Id. at 8:14–18.
`
`2. Claims 2 and 3
`Independent claim 2 of the ’290 patent is directed to a computer-
`readable memory for use by a client computer in conjunction with a server
`that is accessible by the client via a network and stores a user profile and a
`user library containing one or more files. Ex. 1001, 39:1–5. The computer-
`readable memory on the client includes a “program stored on [a] non-
`volatile data storage device.” Id. at 39:10–11. The program is, among other
`things, “operable upon execution to receive from [the] server one of the user
`profiles and to display a user-selectable item for user links contained within
`the user profile,” and “operable in response to selection by a user of one of
`the user links to access the file associated with the selected user link from
`the user library associated with the received user profile.” Id. at 40:3–11.
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and specifies that the program uses a browser.
`Id. at 40:13–17.
`Petitioner provides detailed analysis showing where Kikinis describes
`each limitation of claims 2 and 3. Pet. 13–18. In particular, Petitioner
`asserts that Kikinis discloses the recited “program” (a web browser on a user
`station), “user library” (user-specific databases, such as an e-mail database, a
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`fax database, a voice-mail database, and an electronic document database, all
`of which contain user-specific files), and “user profile” (home page) with
`links to the user’s files. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115–127, 131, 154–
`161). Patent Owner argues that Kikinis fails to describe (a) a program stored
`on a non-volatile data storage device that performs the functions recited in
`claim 2, (b) a file associated with a selected user link, and (c) a user profile.
`PO Resp. 1–5, 10–18, 34–42. Patent Owner contends that Kikinis does not
`anticipate claim 3 for the same reasons provided for claim 2. Id. at 42–43.
`Having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence,
`we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that Kikinis anticipates claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 patent. For the
`reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`contentions.
`
`a. Program stored on a non-volatile data storage device
`Patent Owner contends that Kikinis does not disclose a program
`stored on a client that performs the functions of a “program” as recited in
`claim 2. PO Resp. 10–18. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Kikinis
`discloses a system that provides indirect access to electronic documents
`because it requires programs remotely stored on a server to access remotely
`stored electronic documents. Id. at 11. For example, each electronic
`document server shown in Figure 2 of Kikinis runs software that supports a
`specific application, such as an e-mail program or a voice-mail program.
`Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:27–31). Patent Owner further submits that
`Kikinis’s web browser, although stored on a non-volatile storage device on a
`client, does not perform the claimed functions of a “program” because it
`cannot access electronic documents by itself without additional software
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`programs stored on a remote server. Id. at 16–18 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–
`42). In other words, Patent Owner essentially contends that the client
`program recited in claim 2 must provide direct access to a file stored in a
`user library on the server, without the assistance of any program on the
`server. See PO Resp. 11; see also Ex. 2003, 24:3–24 (Dr. Plock testifying
`that Kikinis’s browser cannot correspond to the claimed “program” because
`it must use a server-side program to access databases, and thus “cannot
`directly access” the databases).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, which improperly
`reads “direct” access into the claim. Claim 2 simply requires the program to
`“access the file,” without precluding the involvement of software on the
`server to facilitate that access. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“access,” as used in the claim without any modifiers, encompasses the type
`of file access performed by the browser in the Kikinis system. Moreover,
`Patent Owner’s own expert admits that in any client-server system, such as
`the system described and claimed in the ’290 patent, software on a server
`necessarily is required for the server to respond to a request from a client
`program, such as a browser. See Ex. 2004, 53:14–19, 54:13–18. Thus, we
`find that Kikinis’s web browser is a program stored on a client that is
`operable to perform the functions of the “program” recited in claim 2,
`including accessing a file on the server.
`
`b. File associated with a selected user link
`Patent Owner contends that Kikinis does not disclose “selection by a
`user of one of the user links to access the file associated with the selected
`user link from the user library,” as recited in claim 2. PO Resp. 34–40.
`According to Patent Owner, Kikinis describes links to software programs
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`and databases, but not links to specific files. Id. at 35–36. As part of its
`argument, Patent Owner submits that the ’290 patent describes a “one-click”
`system that provides a “direct link” from an item in the user profile to a
`specific file in the user library. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 15:12–13 (“The user
`has the ability to subscribe the channel by making a direct link to a
`file . . . .”)).
`As an initial matter, the plain language of claim 2 does not require
`“one-click” access or a “direct link” to files. Although the ’290 patent
`describes direct links to files, it also describes other means for accessing
`files. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:12–15 (“The user has the ability to subscribe
`the channel by making a direct link to a file, or by combining various files
`under some category, or by providing a drop down list to a subscribed
`channel.” (emphases added)); id. at 15:53–57 (“[A] library icon . . . , when
`selected, provides a display as shown in FIG. 5c which contains a list of all
`of the files contained in the user library. From here, the user can access any
`of the files contained in his or her user library . . . .” (emphasis added)).
`Patent Owner does not present persuasive evidence or argument for
`importing a “one-click” limitation into claim 2.
`Turning to Kikinis, we find that, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`arguments, Kikinis discloses the selection of a user link to access the file
`associated with the selected user link from the user library. Kikinis
`specifically states that its home page, which corresponds to the claimed user
`profile, has “on-screen links to electronic documents reserved for the home
`page ‘owner’, such as e-mail and faxes.” Ex. 1005, 7:35–8:1. Patent
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Plock, agrees that this passage from Kikinis discloses
`links to electronic documents. Ex. 2004, 66:6–20. Thus, Kikinis clearly
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`discloses links on a user’s home page to individual, electronic documents,
`which are “files” as that term is defined in the ’290 patent. See supra II.A.1.
`In addition, it is undisputed that Kikinis discloses a home page with
`links to databases. See, e.g., Pet. 16; PO Resp. 36. As described in Kikinis,
`in connection with Figure 2, web server 67 stores a set of databases 71, each
`of which “belongs to (or is assigned to or is associated with) a different
`client.” Ex. 1005, 6:32–35. Each database set 71 includes home page 73
`that is individualized to a specific user and provides links to various lower-
`order databases maintained by electronic document server 69 for each user,
`such as e-mail database 89, fax database 91, voice-mail database 93, and
`database 95 containing other electronic documents. Id. at 6:35–7:4; see id.
`at Fig. 2 (showing client-specific databases 89, 91, 93, and 95).
`Patent Owner agrees that Kikinis describes links to databases, but
`argues that databases are not files. PO Resp. 34, 36, 38; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 44–45.
`The ’290 patent, however, defines “file” as “[a]ny digital item, including
`information, documents, applications, audio/video components, and the like,
`that is stored in memory and is accessible via a file allocation table or other
`pointing or indexing structure.” Ex. 1001, 4:25–28; see supra II.A.1. At his
`deposition, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Plock, admitted that the databases for
`e-mail, fax, voice-mail, and other electronic documents in Kikinis meet the
`requirements of a file, as that term is used in the ’290 patent. See Ex. 2004,
`59:21–63:20. Specifically, Dr. Plock agreed that the databases are stored in
`digital form, id. at 63:15–20, are stored in memory, id. at 59:21–23, 62:21–
`24, and can be accessed using a pointing or indexing structure, id. at 59:24–
`60:1, 60:9–11, 62:25–63:7. Dr. Plock further agreed that a user accesses the
`databases in Kikinis via links on the home page, which corresponds to the
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`claimed user profile. Id. at 71:19–72:8. The databases disclosed in Kikinis,
`therefore, are files associated with selected user links, as recited in claim 2.
`Patent Owner and its expert contend that Kikinis’s lower-order
`databases (e-mail database 89, fax database 91, voice-mail database 93, and
`database 95 for other electronic documents) do not comprise a “user
`library,” as required by claim 2, because the databases contain e-mails,
`voice-mails, and faxes for multiple users. See Tr. 32:11–25; Ex. 2003, 36:3–
`14; Ex. 2004, 56:20–57:1. This argument, however, is inconsistent with the
`disclosures in Kikinis, including the client-specific databases shown in
`Figure 2. See Ex. 1005, 8:30–31 (describing electronic document databases
`as belonging to a user). Kikinis, therefore, discloses a user library (i.e., a
`collection of databases stored for a user) containing one or more files (i.e.,
`databases 89, 91, 93, and 95), which may be selected by a user link in a user
`profile (i.e., home page).
`Thus, Kikinis discloses selection of a link to access a file associated
`with the selected link from a user library in at least two ways—via a link to
`an electronic document stored in a user’s database of electronic documents,
`which corresponds to the recited “user library,” and via a link to one of the
`user’s databases, e.g., the user’s e-mail database, which is a “file” as that
`term is defined in the ’290 patent and which, together with other databases,
`comprise a “user library.”
`
`c. User profile
`Patent Owner contends that the home page disclosed in Kikinis is not
`a “user profile” as recited in claim 2 because Kikinis contains no mention of
`any “user-specific information relating to an individual using a computer”
`found within the home page. PO Resp. 41. Kikinis, however, describes a
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00040
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`home page as “a graphical interface unique to an individual user” that
`“functions in part as a table of contents.” Ex. 1005, 2:3–5. Further, Kikinis
`specifically indicates the home page has “indicia identifying the home page
`owner” and is “individualized to a specific client.” Id. at 3:3–4, 6:34–35.
`Patent Owner’s argument fails to account for these express disclosures of
`“user-specific information” in Kikinis.
`
`3. Claim 1
`Independent claim 1 of the ’290 patent is directed to a computer-
`readable memory for use by a client computer to provide a user with a
`graphical user interface to a plurality of computer resources. Ex. 1001,
`38:30–34. As in claim 2, the computer-readable memory on the client
`includes a “program stored on [a] non-volatile data storage device.” Id. at
`38:37–38. The program recited in claim 1 is, among other things, operable
`“to display a graphical user interface comprising an application window
`separated into a number of regions.” Id. at 38:39–41. One region has “a
`number of graphical objects,” some of which are “each representative of a
`different software application,” and a second region that has “user-selectable
`items,” some of which are “each associated with a different data set.” Id

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket