Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
` Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
` Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Google, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’314 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`(“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD –– The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we determine that the information
`presented by Petitioner has established that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 11-13,
`15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`review of these claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’314 patent is the subject of litigation in
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02830 (W.D. Tenn.), filed
`on September 21, 2012, and numerous district court cases filed by Patent
`Owner against other defendants. Pet. 1-2.
`Additionally, the ’314 patent is the subject of these inter partes
`reviews: IPR2014-00039, IPR2014-00052, and IPR2014-00053.
`In related proceedings IPR2014-00031 and IPR2014-0033, Petitioner
`also seeks review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290. Pet. 2. U.S. Patent No.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`6,771,290 is also the subject of these inter partes reviews: IPR2014-00029,
`IPR2014-00040, and IPR2014-00044.
`B. The ’314 Patent
`The ’314 patent relates to user interfaces that provide advertising
`obtained over a global computer network. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 12-16. The
`’314 patent discloses a client software application that comprises a graphical
`user interface (GUI) program module and an advertising and data
`management (ADM) module. Id. at col. 6, ll. 64-67. The GUI comprises
`multiple regions, including a first region comprising a number of user
`selectable items and a second region comprising an information display
`region, such as banner advertisements. Id. at col. 4, ll. 24-37. Program
`modules associated with the GUI store statistical data regarding the display
`of the selected informational data, allowing the targeting of banner
`advertisements based upon the type of link selected by the user. Id. at col. 4,
`ll. 43-51. The system for selecting and providing advertisements is set forth
`in Figure 3 as follows:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00038
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`User/Demmographicss
`
`
`s a block dFigure 33 illustrates
`
`
`
`a system ddistributingg
`iagram of
`
`
`
`
`
`adveertisementss over the IInternet. IdId. at col. 66, ll. 21-22.. ADM serrver 22 is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`acceessible by cclient compputers 40 oover Internnet 20, wheere client coomputers
`
`40 hhave the client softwaare applicattion installled. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 8, ll. 332-35.
`
`
`
`
`
`ADMM server haas associatted with it Ad Databaase 44 and
`
`
`
`
`
`Dataabase 46. IId. at col. 88, ll. 38-43
`
`. Ad Dataabase 44 st
`
`ores banneer
`
`adveertising thaat is providded to cliennt computeers 40. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`formation
`
`
`used in tarrgeting advvertising
`
`
`
`Dataabase 46 stores demoographic in
`
`
`downnloaded too individuaal client commputers 400. Id. at cool. 8, ll. 55
`-57.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`When a user first aaccesses thhe client sooftware appplication foor the
`ubmits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purpposes of doownloadingg and installling the appplication,, the user s
`
`
`ed to deterrmine whatt advertisinng is
`
`
`
`demographic innformationn that is us
`
`
`provvided to thee user. Id.
`
`at col. 8, l
`
`
`
`
`l. 57-62. TThe demoggraphic infformation iis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submmitted by thhe user by entering thhe informaation into aa form provvided to thhe
`
`
`
` User/Demmographicss
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`user, and ADM server 22 checks the completeness of the form. Id. at col.
`16, l. 60 - col. 17, l. 2. ADM server 22 then assigns a unique ID to the user
`and stores the unique ID with the received user demographic information.
`Id. at col. 17, ll. 11-15. An initial set of advertisements is selected, and the
`client software application is downloaded to client computer 40 for
`installation. Id. at col. 17, ll. 17-23. The client software application
`monitors user interaction with the computer, whether with the client
`software application or with other applications, and later reports this
`information to the ADM server. Id. at col. 12, ll. 55-59; col. 13, ll. 1-2.
`Advertising banners are displayed in response to some user input or
`periodically at timed intervals. Id. at col. 14, ll. 40-43. 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.
`C. Exemplary Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent.
`Independent claim 11 and dependent claim 15 are illustrative of the claims at
`issue and follow:
`11. A method of providing demographically-targeted
`advertising to a computer user, comprising the steps of:
`providing a server that is accessible via a computer
`network,
`permitting a computer user to access said server via said
`computer network,
`acquiring demographic information about the user, said
`demographic information including information specifically
`provided by the user in response to a request for said
`demographic information,
`providing the user with download access to computer
`software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising
`content, records computer usage information concerning the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`user’s utilization of the computer, and periodically requests
`additional advertising content,
`transferring a copy of said software to the computer in
`response to a download request by the user,
`providing a unique identifier to the computer, wherein
`said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over said
`computer network from the computer to said server,
`associating said unique identifier with demographic
`information in a database,
`selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer
`in accordance with the demographic information associated
`with said unique identifier;
`transferring said advertising content from said server to
`the computer for display by said program,
`periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said
`computer usage information recorded by said software from the
`computer via said computer network, and
`associating said computer usage information with said
`demographic information using said unique identifier.
`
`15. The method of claim 11, wherein said providing a unique
`identifier step further comprises storing a cookie on the
`computer.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Logan1
`Logan
`Robinson2 and Patent Owner
`Admitted Prior Art3
`Logan and Robinson
`
`D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth Petitioner’s
`contentions of unpatentability of claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314
`patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, as follows (see Pet. 4-5, 13-60):
`Claims
`Challenged
`11-13, 18, and 20
`11-13, 18, and 20
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11-13, 15, 18, and 20
`
`11-13, 15, 18, and 20
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). Also, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`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 U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 (Ex. 1002) (“Logan”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,014 (Ex. 1003) (“Robinson”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 B1 (Ex. 1001) (“the’314 patent”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`1. “providing a unique identifier to the computer”
`Independent claim 11 recites the limitation “providing a unique
`identifier to the computer.” Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable
`construction of “unique identifier” is “information that uniquely identifies a
`user.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 91). We are persuaded that the term “unique
`identifier” encompasses any unique information that can be used to identify
`a user.
`The Specification describes that server 22 assigns a unique ID to a
`user and stores this ID in user/demographics database 46. Ex. 1001, col. 17,
`ll. 11-17. Upon downloading the client software application, the user ID is
`assigned to that particular copy of the client software application. Id. at col.
`17, ll. 29-34. Alternatively, the user ID can be included in a cookie placed
`by server 22 on user’s computer 18 such that this cookie can be accessed by
`server 22 each time computer usage information is sent to server 22. Id. at
`col. 17, ll. 34-38.
`Although the Specification illustrates a context for this limitation, the
`disclosure of a cookie should not be imported as a limitation to the scope of
`“providing a unique identifier to the computer,” as recited in claim 11. The
`Specification clearly illustrates that a cookie can be provided to the user’s
`computer in the alternative. Id.
`Additionally, dependent claim 15 further limits “providing a unique
`identifier to the computer” to require “storing a cookie on the computer.”
`Because claim 15 further limits claim 11, the doctrine of claim
`differentiation supports a conclusion that the broadest reasonable
`construction of “providing a unique identifier to the computer” in claim 11 is
`broader than “storing a cookie on the computer.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, we
`construe “providing a unique identifier to the computer” to mean providing
`any unique information that identifies a user to the computer.
`Additionally, this limitation further recites “providing” this identifier.
`The Specification and the claims do not limit the scope of the term
`“providing.” Therefore, we construe “providing” to mean associating a
`unique ID to a computer, where the unique ID is maintained on either the
`computer or server.
`In sum, we interpret “providing a unique identifier to a computer” to
`mean associating a unique identifier to a computer, regardless of where the
`identifier is stored or maintained.
`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. We agree with Petitioner and accordingly 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 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 “demographic information” is
`both reasonable and consistent with its usage in the Specification.
`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,
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`ll. 12-13), the broader term “software” includes “one or more programs.”
`Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 95-96; Ex. 1007). We agree with Petitioner’s
`proposed construction. The Specification specifically defines a “software
`application” to include only a single program, whereas the claims recite the
`broader term “software,” which implicitly must require 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). The Specification does not provide a
`special definition for “periodically,” and the claims do not limit further the
`scope of “periodically.” The plain and ordinary meaning of “periodically”
`includes “recurring from time to time.” We agree with Petitioner that
`“periodically,” under the broadest reasonable construction, means “at regular
`or irregular time intervals.” Accordingly, we construe “periodically” to
`mean “recurring from time to time, at regular or irregular time intervals.”
`B. Claims 11-13, 18, and 20 – Anticipated by Logan
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Logan. Pet. 13-32. In support of
`this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed by Logan. In its
`explanations, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Stephen Gray (Ex. 1004).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`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
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Logan. Pet. 13-32.
`For example, independent claim 11 recites a method of providing
`demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user. Logan discloses a
`method for matching advertisements to subscribers based on the personal
`characteristics of the subscriber. Ex. 1002, col. 4, ll. 15-27; col. 24, ll. 1-25;
`col. 25, ll. 15-25.
`
`Claim 11 further recites “providing a server that is accessible via a
`computer network” and “permitting a computer user to access said server via
`said computer network.” Logan discloses server 101 that is connected to
`client computer 103 via Internet 123. Id. at col. 4, ll. 3-13; Fig. 1.
`Claim 11 also recites “acquiring demographic information about the
`user, said demographic information including information specifically
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`provided by the user in response to a request for said demographic
`information.” Logan discloses that an interested subscriber supplies
`personal information and programming preferences to initialize an account.
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 48-51. The information provided by the user includes the
`user’s full name, billing address, credit card information, and descriptive
`data, such as age, profession, sex, and marital status. Id. at col. 8, l. 64 – col.
`9, l. 5. As discussed above, demographic information includes information
`such as billing address, credit card information, and descriptive data. After
`an account has been established, utility programs and data are downloaded,
`or transferred, from the server to the client player. Id. at col. 8, ll. 54-56.
`Claim 11 further recites “providing the user with download access to
`computer software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising
`content, records computer usage information concerning the user’s
`utilization of the computer, and periodically requests additional advertising
`content” and “transferring a copy of said software to the computer in
`response to a download request by the user.” As discussed above, Logan
`discloses that after an account has been established, utility programs and
`data are downloaded, or transferred, from the server to the client player. Id.
`at col. 8, ll. 54-56. That is, a user is provided with download access to
`computer software, and a copy of the software is transferred to the client
`player. The files prepared by the server include programming segments and
`advertising segments. Id. at col. 6, ll. 56-60. A session usage log is
`recorded during a playback session to identify every segment actually
`played, including programming and advertising segments. Id. at col. 7,
`ll. 39-45; col. 8, ll. 58-62. The compilation file is transmitted periodically
`from the server to the client player. Id. at col. 5, ll. 20-21.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Claim 11 additionally recites “providing a unique identifier to the
`computer, wherein said identifier uniquely identifies information sent over
`said computer network from the computer to said server” and “associating
`said unique identifier with demographic information in a database.” Logan
`describes that a usage log is recorded during the playback session and is
`uploaded from the player to the server at the conclusion of the session. Ex.
`1002, col. 7, ll. 41-45; col. 16, ll. 50-56. The usage log indicates playback
`usage information such as every segment played, the volume and speed of
`each segment that was played, and the start and end time of playback. Id. at
`col. 7, ll. 41-45. The usage log further includes a “subscriber” field that
`contains the “AccountNo” of the subscriber. Id. at col. 26, ll. 20-22. As
`discussed in our claim construction, the broadly claimed, unique identifier
`includes Logan’s “AccountNo” because it is provided to identify a
`subscriber uniquely, where this value is maintained on the client computer
`and uploaded to the server. The “AccountNo” identifier and demographic
`information both are associated with the subscriber. Id. at col. 24, ll. 16-31.
`Accordingly, the “AccountNo” is associated with the demographic
`information.
`Claim 11 also recites “selecting advertising content for transfer to the
`computer in accordance with the demographic information associated with
`said unique identifier” and “transferring said advertising content from said
`server to the computer for display by said program.” Logan describes an
`algorithm employed to match advertisements with the interests of a
`subscriber. Id. Logan further describes an algorithm, “function_id
`DemographicMatch,” that matches advertisements to the demographic
`information of a subscriber. Id. at col. 25, ll. 8-10. Advertisements are
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`inserted into programming and transferred to the subscriber. Id. at col. 16,
`ll. 63-67; col. 17, l. 1.
`Claim 11 lastly recites “periodically acquiring said unique identifier
`and said computer usage information recorded by said software from the
`computer via said computer network” and “associating said computer usage
`information with said demographic information using said unique
`identifier.” Logan describes that the server periodically transmits a
`compilation file to a player, and at the same time usage data maintained by
`the player is uploaded to the server. Id. at col. 5, ll. 20-60. That is, the
`usage data file is transmitted periodically to the server. As discussed in our
`claim construction above, the claimed “periodically” encompasses “at
`regular or irregular time intervals” and, as such, encompasses Logan’s
`periodic transfer of the compilation file and usage data. The usage table and
`subscriber both include the field for “AccountNo.” Id. at col. 20, ll. 31-63.
`Accordingly, Logan describes periodically acquiring computer usage
`information for a particular identifier and associating the usage information
`with demographic information associated with the same identifier.
`3. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent are
`anticipated by Logan.
`C. Claims 11-13, 18, and 20 – Obvious over Logan
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Logan. Pet. 32-33. Petitioner
`contends that if certain limitations of these claims are construed such that
`Logan does not disclose them explicitly, the claims would have been
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`obvious in view of Logan. As we have construed the claims, however, we
`determine there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in
`showing that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Logan.
`Accordingly, we conclude that the ground based on obviousness over Logan
`is redundant in light of the ground for which we institute review for the same
`claims.
`D. Claim 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 – Obvious over Logan and Robinson
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Logan and Robinson. Pet. 57-60.
`In support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed or
`suggested by a combination of Logan and Robinson. In its explanations,
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Stephen Gray.
`1. Robinson (Ex. 1003)
`Robinson discloses a system for the display of advertising to users of
`an interactive communications medium. Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 12-13. The
`system tracks activities of a subject in an interactive communications
`medium, derives information from the activities, determines a community
`for the subject based on the derived information, and determines which
`advertisements to present to the subject based on the determined community.
`Id. at col. 3, l. 62 – col. 4, l. 6.
`Tracking data can be stored locally on a user’s local computer. Id. at
`col. 7, ll. 26-28. A cookie can be generated and stored on the user’s
`computer. Id. at col. 8, ll. 42-44. The cookie is the only way to associate
`information stored on the central server with that particular user. Id. The
`cookie contains the identifier of the user, and the user ID in the central
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`database is updated with tracking information from the cookie. Id. at col.
`10, ll. 11-14.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 are anticipated by
`Logan unless the limitation “providing a unique identifier to the computer”
`does not encompass the “AccountNo” disclosed by Logan. Pet. 57-58. As
`discussed above, this limitation, as broadly construed, encompasses Logan’s
`“AccountNo,” and accordingly, Petitioner is likely to prevail in showing that
`Logan anticipates claims 11-13, 18, and 20. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
`contention that claims 11-13, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Logan and Robinson is a redundant ground.
`Petitioner further contends that dependent claim 15 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Logan and Robinson. Claim 15
`depends from claim 11 and further recites that the limitation of “providing a
`unique identifier” comprises “storing a cookie on the computer.” Petitioner
`points to Robinson as describing this limitation, contending that Robinson
`describes a cookie mechanism that is stored on the user’s computer. Pet. 60
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 158 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 10, ll. 8-9)). Robinson
`discloses the use of a cookie mechanism that ensures it is the only way that
`information is associated to the user. Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 41-44.
`Petitioner further contends that a person with ordinary skill in the art
`would be motivated to combine Robinson’s disclosure of a cookie
`mechanism that stores a cookie locally on the user’s computer with Logan in
`order to provide “a very high level of security.” Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶ 159 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 39-41)). On this record, Petitioner has
`made a sufficient showing of articulated reasoning with rational
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`underpinning for combining the references. In light of Petitioner’s
`contentions, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 15 of the ’314 patent is
`unpatentable as obvious over Logan and Robinson.
`3. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claim 15 of the ’314 patent would have been obvious
`over Logan and Robinson. The challenged ground of claims 11-13, 18, and
`20 as obvious over Logan and Robinson is deemed redundant.
`E. Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 – Obvious over Robinson and Patent
`Owner’s Admitted Prior Art
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson and Patent Owner’s
`Admitted Prior Art. Pet. 33-57. Having reviewed this ground of
`unpatentability asserted by Petitioner, we exercise our discretion and
`determine it is redundant to the ground of unpatentability on which we
`institute review of the same claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 11-13, 15,
`18, and 20 of the ’314 patent.
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`any challenged claims.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to the following proposed grounds:
`1.
`Anticipation of claims 11-13, 18, and 20 by Logan; and
`2.
`Obviousness of claim 15 over Logan and Robinson.
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds raised in the Petition are
`authorized for inter partes review.
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 2:00 PM, Eastern Time on May 6, 2014; the parties are
`directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide4 for guidance in preparing
`for the initial conference call, and should be prepared to discuss any
`proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions
`the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`4 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765-66 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Clinton H. Brannon
`Brian A. Rosenthal
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`cbrannon@mayerbrown.com
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`
`
`19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
