U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Case No.: To be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,290
`UNDER 35 U.S.C §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`a.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1
`b.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1
`i.
`Current Litigation ....................................................................... 1
`ii.
`Administrative Proceedings ....................................................... 2
`Lead and Backup Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 2
`c.
`Service of Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................... 3
`d.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................... 3
`a.
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 3
`b.
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................... 4
`i.
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................ 6
`1.
`“Browser” ........................................................................ 6
`2.
`“Client Computer” ........................................................... 6
`3.
`“Computer” ...................................................................... 7
`4.
`“File” ................................................................................ 7
`5.
`“Information Resource” ................................................... 7
`6.
`“Link” .............................................................................. 8
`7.
`“Network” ........................................................................ 8
`8.
`“Non-Volatile Data Storage Device” .............................. 8
`9.
`“Profile” ........................................................................... 8
`10.
`“Server” ........................................................................... 9
`How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................ 9
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .............. 9
`iii.
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 10
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`ii.
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’290 PATENT ......................................................... 10
`a.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ’290 Patent ...................... 10
`b.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’290 Patent ................... 13
`VI. DETAILED CHALLENGE ......................................................................... 14
`a.
`Ground 1: Kikinis Anticipates Claims 2 and 3 of the ’290
`Patent .................................................................................................. 14
`i.
`Brief Overview of Kikinis ....................................................... 14
`ii.
`Analysis of Unpatentability ..................................................... 15
`1.
`Kikinis Anticipates Claim 2 of the ‘290 Patent ............. 15
`2.
`Kikinis Anticipates Claim 3 of the ’290 Patent ............. 28
`Ground 2: Kikinis Renders Claims 2 and 3 Obvious ......................... 30
`Ground 3: Subrahmanyam and the ’290 Patent Specification
`Renders Claims 2 and 3 Obvious ....................................................... 33
`i.
`Brief Overview of Subrahmanyam .......................................... 33
`ii.
`Analysis of Unpatentability ..................................................... 34
`1.
`Claim 2 is Obvious Over Subrahmanyam in View
`of the Admissions in the ’290 Patent Specification ...... 34
`Claim 3 is Obvious Over Subrahmanyam in View
`of the Admissions in the ’290 Patent Specification ...... 43
`Ground 4: Subrahmanyam and Kikinis Renders Claims 2 and 3
`Obvious .............................................................................................. 44
`i.
`Claim 2 is Obvious Over Subrahmanyam in View of
`Kikinis ...................................................................................... 45
`Claim 3 is Obvious Over Subrahmanyam in View of
`Kikinis ...................................................................................... 47
`Detailed Claim Chart of Subrahmanyam in View of the ’290
`Patent Specification or Kikinis ........................................................... 48
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`b.
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 6
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (2011) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) ................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 5, 17, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123 ........................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 1001 – U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`
`Exhibit 1002 – International Publication No. WO 97/09682 to Kikinis
`
`Exhibit 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 5,732,214 to Subrahmanyam
`
`Exhibit 1004 – Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`Exhibit 1005 – Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`
`Exhibit 1006 – Barry M. Leiner et al., Brief History of the Internet,
`INTERNET SOCIETY (Oct. 15, 2012),
`http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Brief_Histo
`ry_of_the_Internet.pdf
`
`Exhibit 1007 – “Hypertext Markup Language,” Network Working Group
`Request for Comments 1866, November 1995
`
`Exhibit 1008 – September 2012 Web Server Survey, Netcraft.com,
`http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2012/09/10/september-
`2012-web-server-survey.html (last visited Sep. 28, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1009 – “The Common Gateway Interface (CGI) Version 1.1,”
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 3875,
`October 2004
`
`Exhibit 1010 – Application Server Product Vendors, Service-
`Architecture.com, http://www.service-
`architecture.com/products/application_servers.html (last
`visited Sep. 28, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1011 – “HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working
`Group Request for Comments 2109, February 1997
`
`Exhibit 1012 – “HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working
`Group Request for Comments 6265, April 2011
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1013 – “Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program,”
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 675,
`December 1974
`
`
`Exhibit 1014 - Stephen Gray Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On behalf of Google, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123, inter partes review is
`
`respectfully requested for claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (“the ’290
`
`Patent”) (Google Exhibit 1001 “Ex. 1001”). This petition demonstrates that there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition based on prior art references that the USPTO did not
`
`have before it during prosecution. Claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 Patent should
`
`therefore be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`a.
`Google, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`b.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`i.
`The ’290 Patent is presently the subject of litigation in the following cases
`
`Current Litigation
`
`which may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding: B.E. Technology,
`
`LLC v. Google, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02830; B.E. Technology, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02829; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02831; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Amazon Digital
`
`Servs., Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02767; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony
`
`Computer Entm’t, W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02826; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Mobile Commc’ns, W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02827; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony
`
`Elecs., Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02828; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Samsung
`
`Telecomms. America, LLC, W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02824; B.E. Technology, LLC
`
`v. Samsung Elecs.America, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02825; B.E. Technology,
`
`LLC v. Barnes & Noble, W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02823; and B.E. Technology, LLC
`
`v. Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC, W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02866.
`
`ii.
`Administrative Proceedings
`Petitioner has filed concurrently with this petition another petition for inter
`
`partes review which is also directed to claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 Patent.
`
`Petitioner is also filing a petition for inter partes review directed to related
`
`U.S. Patent No 6,628,314, which is also at issue in B.E. Technology, LLC v.
`
`Google, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02830.
`
`c.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Clinton H. Brannon (Reg. No. 57,887)
`cbrannon@mayerbrown.com
`
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3440
`Fax: (202) 263-3300
`
`Backup Counsel
`Brian A. Rosenthal (pro hac vice
`motion requested)
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3446
`Fax: (202) 263-3300
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests authorization to file a motion for Brian A.
`
`Rosenthal to appear before the USPTO pro hac vice. Mr. Rosenthal is an
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`experienced litigating attorney and is currently serving as one of the lead counsels
`
`for Google, Inc. in related matter B.E. Technology, LLC v. Google, Inc., W.D.
`
`Ten., No 2:12-cv-02830. Mr. Rosenthal has established familiarity with the
`
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner intends to file a motion to
`
`appear pro hac vice under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a
`
`power of attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`Service of Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`d.
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the mailing
`
`address of lead and backup counsel designated above. Petitioner also consents to
`
`electronic service by email at: cbrannon@mayerbrown.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104, each requirement for inter partes review of
`
`the ’290 Patent is satisfied.
`
`a. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners hereby certify that the ’290 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review. Specifically, Petitioner certifies that: Petitioner has not filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of a claim of the ’290 Patent; this Petition is filed
`
`less than one year from October 9, 2012, the date on which the Petitioner was
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’290 Patent; the estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this inter partes review; and
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`this Petition is filed after the later of (a) the date that is nine months after the date
`
`of the grant of the ’290 Patent or (b) the date of termination of any post-grant
`
`review of the ’290 Patent.
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The Office is authorized to charge
`
`any fee deficiency, or credit overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 130019. A List
`
`of Exhibits is included in this paper pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e).
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`b.
`The precise relief requested by Petitioner is that claims 2 and 3 of the ’290
`
`Patent be cancelled in view of the following prior art references:
`
`Patent/Publicatio
`n No.
`WO 9709682
`(“Kikinis”)
`U.S. 5,732,214
`(“Subrahmanyam”)
`
`Date of
`Filing/Priority
`Publication/Issuance
`Date
`September 1, 1995 March 13, 1997
`
`February 28, 1995 March 24, 1998
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`The ’290 Patent is a national stage application of PCT/US99/16135 filed
`
`
`
`July 16, 1999, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/118,351, filed
`
`on July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. Petitioner notes that claims 2
`
`and 3 of the’290 Patent include subject matter that is not disclosed in parent
`
`application No. 09/118,351. For example, claim 2 of the ’290 Patent includes at
`
`least the limitations “user library” and “user link” that were not disclosed in
`
`application no. 09/118,351, and whose disclosure was added for the first time in
`
`the July 16, 1999 PCT application. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 8:3-50, col. 12:39 –
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`col. 13:25. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 patent are entitled to claim
`
`priority no earlier than July 16, 1999.
`
`Accordingly, Kikinis qualifies as prior art to claims 2 and 3 of the ‘290
`
`patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),1 and Subrahmanyam qualifies as prior art
`
`at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Even if the ’290 Patent is entitled to claim priority to the July 17, 1998,
`
`filing date, which it is not, Kikinis would still qualify as prior art at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) and Subrahmanyam would qualify as prior art at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`None of the above references were cited during the prosecution of the ’290
`
`Patent. In the instant inter partes review, Petitioner applies the above references
`
`and asserts the following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
`
`Ground Claims Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’290 Patent
`1
`2, 3
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Kikinis
`2
`2, 3
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kikinis
`3
`2, 3
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Subrahmanyam in view
`of the admissions in the ’290 patent specification.
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Subrahmanyam in view
`of Kikinis
`
`4
`
`2, 3
`
`
`
`
`1 Unless specifically noted, all references to Title 35 of the United States Code
`
`refer to code pre-America Invents Act. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 102 (2011).
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`i.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of the
`
`claim must be given their plain meaning, unless the inventor, acting as a
`
`lexicographer, has set forth special meaning to certain terms. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also In re Yamamoto,
`
`740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`The ’290 Patent recites explicit definitions for 20 terms, including many that
`
`appear in claims 2 and 3. See Ex. 1001, col. 3: 65 - col. 5:5. Defined terms that
`
`appear in claims 2 and 3 include the following:
`
`1.
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “browser” is “[a] program that can
`
`“Browser”
`
`communicate over a network using http or another protocol and that can display
`
`html information and other digital information.” Ex. 1001, col. 3:65-67.
`
`2.
`
`“Client Computer”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “client computer” is “[a] computer
`
`that is connected to a network (including computers that are connected only
`
`occasionally to the network such as, for example, by a modem and telephone line)
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`and that can be used to send requests for information to other computers over the
`
`network.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:1-6.
`
`3.
`
`“Computer”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “computer” is “[a]n apparatus
`
`having a processing device that is capable of executing instructions, including
`
`devices such as personal computers, laptop computers, and personal digital
`
`assistants, as well as set top television boxes, televisions, radios, portable
`
`telephones, and other such devices having a processing capability.” Ex. 1001, col.
`
`4:7-12.
`
`4.
`
`“File”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “file” is “[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, col. 4:24-27.
`
`5.
`
`“Information Resource”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that “information resource” is “[a]
`
`source of information stored on a server or other computer that is accessible to
`
`other computers over a network.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:32-34.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`6.
`
`“Link”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “link” is “[a] data item that
`
`identifies the location of a program or information resource. A URL is a link, as is
`
`a path and filename of an information resource.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:37-39.
`
`7.
`
`“Network”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “network” is “[a] system having at
`
`least two computers in communicable connection, including intranets, personal
`
`networks, virtual private networks, and global public networks such as the
`
`Internet.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:40-43.
`
`8.
`
`“Non-Volatile Data Storage Device”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “non-volatile data storage device”
`
`is “[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, col. 4:44-49.
`
`9.
`
`“Profile”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “profile” is “[u]ser-specific
`
`information relating to an individual using a computer.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:53-54.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
`“Server”
`
`The ’290 Patent explicitly provides that a “server” is “[a] computer on a
`
`network that stores information and that answers requests for information.” Ex.
`
`1001, col. 4:63-64.
`
`Petitioner submits that the broadest reasonable construction of the
`
`limitations of claims 2 and 3 must encompass these definitions, and therefore
`
`submits that the above definitions should apply to this proceeding. See Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶ 110-11.
`
`ii. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 Patent are unpatentable
`
`under the statutory grounds identified above, including the identification of where
`
`each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications, is
`
`provided below.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`iii.
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon and the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenged claims, including an identification of
`
`specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are provided below. A
`
`List of Exhibits identifying the exhibits is also included in this petition. The
`
`technical information and grounds for rejection explained in detail in the petition
`
`are further supported by the Declaration of Stephen Gray attached as Ex. 1004.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) of the ’290 Patent in 1998 or
`
`1999 would have been a person with good knowledge of computer networking and
`
`networking architecture. This person would also be familiar with client-server
`
`systems and information delivery systems. This person would have gained such
`
`knowledge through an undergraduate degree in electrical/computer engineering,
`
`computer science (or equivalent degree), or through two or more years of work
`
`experience in the relevant field, or through a combination thereof. See Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶ 22-23; 25-26.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’290 PATENT
`a.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ’290 Patent
`The ’290 Patent describes a system that allows for the remote storage and
`
`retrieval of user-specific files. The disclosed system includes a plurality of client
`
`computers 40 each having a client software application. See Ex. 1001 at col. 1: 42-
`
`48. The client computer provides access, through Internet 20 or other local
`
`networks, to an advertising and data management (“ADM”) server 22. See, e.g.,
`
`id.; FIG. 3 (reproduced below).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The ADM server includes a User/Demographics Database 46 that stores a
`
`“user profile” and a “user library” for a user. See id. at col. 12: 50-52; col. 13: 3-7.
`
`The user profile contains user-specific information, including “bookmarks,
`
`shortcuts, and other such links to files and information resources accessible via
`
`either network 42 or the Internet 20.” See id. at col. 13: 1-3. The user library
`
`“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.” See id. at col. 13: 4-7. By storing the user profile and user library
`
`on the server 22, the ’290 Patent describes that a user can thus access his/her user
`
`library and the files associated therewith from any client computer 40 without the
`
`need to physically transport the files. See id. at col. 13: 7-12.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’290 Patent further describes how a user may access the user profile and
`
`user library from a client computer 40. For example, the client software
`
`application 10 includes a GUI module 52, which provides a user interface with an
`
`application window 24. See id. at col. 13:41-45; FIG. 5. The application window
`
`24 includes an URL field which is “an input box that can be used for entering
`
`URLs[.]” Id. at col. 14: 40-41. The GUI module 52 “initiates operation of the
`
`user’s default browser and directs it to access and display the specified web page”
`
`after the user enters an URL. The application window also includes a linked icon
`
`88 that “can be used to bring up a window which includes a list of the files located
`
`in the user library.” See id. at col. 16: 37-39. Specifically, when the user selects
`
`the “Library” icon, the application provides the user with a display as shown in
`
`FIG. 5c, reproduced below.
`
`As shown in Figure 5c, all of the
`
`files contained in the user’s user library
`
`are displayed, including Word and Excel
`
`files. See id. at col. 15: 53-56. From this
`
`window, the user can access any of the
`
`files in his/her user library. See id. at col.
`
`15: 56-60.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’290 Patent
`
`b.
`The ’290 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/744,033, filed
`
`on April 11, 2001,2 which is a 35 U.S.C. § 371, national stage application of
`
`International Application No. PCT/US99/16135, filed on July 16, 1999. See Ex.
`
`1001, p. 1. PCT/US99/16135 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/118,351, filed on July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. See id.
`
`Prior to examination of the application for the ‘290 Patent, the applicant
`
`submitted two preliminary amendments cancelling claims 1-5 of the application
`
`and updating the specification. See Ex. 1006 at pp. 162-64. Applicants also
`
`submitted an information disclosure statement citing certain U.S. patents and a
`
`single non-patent literature document. See id. at pp. 165, 179, 180.
`
`On March 16, 2003, the Examiner and Applicants’ representative conducted
`
`a telephonic interview which resulted in the allowance of certain claims. Id. at p.
`
`172. As a result of the interview, claims 6, 8, and 10 were cancelled, and claim 9
`
`(issued as claim 2) was amended to delete the term “using the browser.” Id. at pp.
`
`172-73. Further, new claim 11 (issued as claim 3) was added to depend from claim
`
`9 (issued as claim 3). Id. As part of the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner
`
`2 While the initial national stage application was filed with the USPTO on January
`
`17, 2001, the required oath or declaration pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 371(c) was not
`
`received by the Office until April 11, 2001. See Ex. 1006, at p. 42, 154.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`included two U.S. patents in the Notice of Reference Cited document that had
`
`previously been included in Applicants’ information disclosure statement. Id. at p.
`
`178. The ’290 Patent issued on August 3, 2004. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1
`
`VI. DETAILED CHALLENGE
`a. Ground 1: Kikinis Anticipates Claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 Patent
`i.
`Brief Overview of Kikinis
`Kikinis discloses a document management system including a graphical
`
`interface that allows for the remote storage and retrieval of electronic documents.
`
`See Ex. 1002, Abstract. Kikinis describes that his invention is directed to “Internet
`
`users who need service-independent access to their electronic documents.” Id. at p.
`
`1: 7-9. Kikinis discloses that a user is provided with an Internet home page
`
`interface, which allows the user access to his/her own home page. Id. at p. 3:2-4.
`
`The user’s home page includes user-selectable links that provide the user with
`
`“access to an electronic document data base containing electronic documents
`
`addressed specifically to the [user].” Id. at p. 3: 4-6. As such, Kikinis allows the
`
`“Internet user to access electronic documents over the Internet, such as e-mail and
`
`specifically addressed to the user, even though access to the Internet user’s usual
`
`Internet Service Provider is not available.” Id. at p. 3: 22-25. In other words, the
`
`user of the Kikinis system will have access to his electronic files from anywhere,
`
`so long as he/she can access the Internet.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Analysis of Unpatentability
`
`ii.
`As provided by the detailed claim chart below as well as Stephen Gray’s
`
`declaration. Kikinis explicitly discloses all features of claims 2 and 3 of the ’290
`
`Patent, and hence anticipates those claims. See generally Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 116-129.
`
`1. Kikinis Anticipates Claim 2 of the ’290 Patent
`The preamble of claim 2 recites “[a] computer-readable memory for use by
`
`a client 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, [sic] link to
`
`one of the files in the user library[.]”
`
`Kikinis discloses each of the elements in the preamble since the reference
`
`describes a web browser on a user station 53 (client computer) that allows a user to
`
`access, via the Internet 99 (network), a User’s Provider (server) which includes the
`
`user’s home page 73 (user profile) and user-specific files contained in data bases
`
`(user library). See FIG. 2 (reproduced below); see also Ex. 1002, Kikinis at p.
`
`6:11-22.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The user’s home page 73 has “on-screen links to electronic documents
`
`reserved for the home page ‘owner’ such as e-mail and faxes.” See id. at p. 7: 34 -
`
`p. 8:13. As such, the user’s home page corresponds to the claimed “user profile”
`
`of the ’290 patent under the definition of “profile” in the ’290 Patent reproduced
`
`above, since it contains user-specific information and contains links to files in a
`
`user library. Likewise, each of the user’s data bases in Kikinis (89, 91, 93 or 95)
`
`corresponds to the claimed “user library” of the ’290 patent, as each database
`
`contains files for a particular user. See Ex. 1004, ¶ 119.
`
`With respect to the preamble feature of “the server storing a user profile and
`
`user library for each of a number of different users,” (emphasis added), Kikinis
`
`discloses that web server 67 “supports a set of data bases 71,” each of which is
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`associated with a different user and includes that user’s home page 73. See Ex.
`
`1002 at p. 6: 32-35. Each user’s home page 73 provides “links to various lower-
`
`order data bases” containing documents addressed specifically to that user. See id.
`
`at p. 6: 35 – p. 7:4; see also id. at p. 3:1-6; FIG. 2, items 89, 91, 93, and 95. Hence,
`
`Kikinis explicitly discloses two or more user libraries that each contains files for
`
`different users. See Ex. 1004, ¶ 120.
`
`While one embodiment of Kikinis discloses that the client’s electronic
`
`document data bases are maintained by an electronic document server 69, (see Ex.
`
`1002 at p. 6: 35 – p. 7:1), Kikinis also discloses that the “[a]rrangement and nature
`
`of [the client’s] electronic document databases can vary considerabl[y].” Id. at p.
`
`9:32-33. For example, as Kikinis recites in claim 7, a document system may
`
`include a computerized station, “a home page interface stored at [a] remote
`
`server, assigned to a home page owner, and accessible from the computerized
`
`station through the remote server,” and “an electronic document data base at the
`
`remote server containing documents specifically addressed to the home page
`
`owner[.]” Id. at p. 10:30 – p. 11:9 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Kikinis
`
`explicitly discloses that the user profiles and user libraries can be stored on the
`
`same server.3 See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 119-24.
`
`3 In the alternative, Kikinis would also serve as a single-reference obviousness
`
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See infra Part VI.b.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Kikinis also discloses “a program stored on [a] non-volatile data storage
`
`device in a computer-readable format,” as required by claim 2. Specifically,
`
`Kikinis describes a web browser 109 that provides access to web server 67. See
`
`FIG. 2 above; see also Ex. 1002 at p. 6:11-22. Kikinis further discloses that a
`
`browser is software that “interprets the Web’s hypertext markup language and
`
`provides a graphical on-screen interface including screen buttons and data-entry
`
`and display fields, which aid a user in finding, selecting, viewing and transmitting
`
`information [, as well as] facilitates exchange of electronic documents[.]” See id.
`
`at p. 1:26-32. At the time of the filing of the ’290 patent, a POSITA would
`
`understand that a browser program was necessarily stored on a non-volatile data
`
`storage device, for example, a computer’s hard disk drive. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 118,
`
`125.
`
`Kikinis likewise discloses “said program being operable upon execution to
`
`display a graphical user interface comprising an application window having a