throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`MATCH.COM LLC, and PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-000381
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND
`(INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,314 B1)
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LYNNE E.
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00699 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BE Tech’s Proposed Substitute Claims are not Supported and
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................... 1
`A.
`BE Tech Does Not Set Forth Adequate Support in its Motion ............. 1
`B.
`BE Tech’s Proposed Amendment Lacks Written Description
`Support .................................................................................................. 3
`BE Tech’s Proposed Amendment Raises Additional
`Patentability Issues ................................................................................ 5
`III. BE Tech’s Proposed Claims are Not Patentable Over the Prior Art ............... 7
`A.
`Teachings of Logan ............................................................................... 7
`B. Additional Teachings of the Prior Art ................................................... 8
`1.
`Ferguson ...................................................................................... 9
`2.
`Lazarus ...................................................................................... 11
`3.
`Fleming ..................................................................................... 12
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00026, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013) ........................................................... 1
`
`Page(s)
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir.2001) ............................................................................. 2
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp.,
`IPR2012-00005, Paper 7 (June 3, 2013) ........................................................... 1, 3
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC,
`IPR2013-00419, Paper 32 (March 7, 2014)...................................................... 2, 3
`
`STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 9, 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2172.01 .................................................................................................... 6
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2143 ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Patent Owner BE Tech, as the moving party, bears the burden to establish
`
`that it is entitled to the relief request in its Motion to Amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`BE Tech’s motion should be denied because it fails to adequately provide support
`
`in the original disclosure and explain “why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter as a
`
`whole” for the proposed substitute claim. Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-
`
`00005, Paper 7 at 4 (June 3, 2013).
`
`Further, BE Tech’s motion should be denied because it fails to “come
`
`forward with technical facts and reasoning about those [added] feature(s),
`
`including construction of new claim terms, sufficient to persuade the Board that the
`
`proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art of record, and over the
`
`prior art not of record but known to the patent owner.” Idle Free Systems, Inc. v.
`
`Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00026, Paper 26 at 7 (June 11, 2013).
`
`Finally, BE Tech’s proposed claims should be denied because they not
`
`enabled and indefinite.
`
`II. BE Tech’s Proposed Substitute Claims are not Supported and
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`A. BE Tech Does Not Set Forth Adequate Support in its Motion
`In its motion, BE Tech asserts that the following underlined elements of
`
`claim 23 were added:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`wherein the computer usage information comprises information about
`
`the user’s interactions with said computer software displaying advertising
`
`content and at least one other program,…
`
`
`
`
`
`selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in
`
`accordance with real-time and other computer usage information and
`
`demographic information associated with said unique identifier.
`
`Motion to Amend at 6 (underline in original). BE Tech fails to mention an
`
`additional change in the claim – the modified “selecting advertising content…”
`
`step and the original “transferring said advertising content…” step have been
`
`moved to the end of the claim. It thus appears that BE Tech is attempting to
`
`introduce a requirement that the steps be performed in a specific order. See
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342-43 (Fed.
`
`Cir.2001).
`
` BE Tech does not provide adequate support for its proposed claim changes
`
`including the new order of the recited steps. Rather, its sole support for the
`
`amendments consists of 16 string cites to various parts of the ’705 application
`
`(which led to the ’314 Patent). Contrary to the Board’s requirements, BE Tech thus
`
`does not provide “written description support for the entire combination
`
`claimed,” (Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00419, Paper 32 at 5(March 7, 2014)) (emphasis added). Nor does it explain why a
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inventor had
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`possession of the entire combination. Nichia Corp., Paper 7 at 4. Further, BE Tech
`
`also does not provide a proposed claim construction for the newly added “real-time
`
`and other computer usage information” feature. Toyota at 5. Both of these terms
`
`should have been reasonably anticipated as subject to dispute because they at least
`
`implicate indefiniteness issues as will be discussed in Section II.C below. See id. at
`
`5.
`
`B.
`
`BE Tech’s Proposed Amendment Lacks Written Description
`Support
`
`Not only has BE Tech failed to meet its burden by providing adequate
`
`support and explanation for its proposed claim changes, the ’705 application
`
`substantively fails to provide written description support. Proposed claim 23
`
`requires selecting advertising content in accordance with “real-time and other
`
`computer usage information and demographic information associated with said
`
`unique identifier[.]” (Emphasis added). As such, all three pieces of information are
`
`required to be used together to select advertising content.
`
`In contrast, the ’705 application describes a “two-tiered approach” of
`
`targeted advertising wherein the “first tier is the initial selection of banners to be
`
`downloaded to the user based upon the user’s demographic information.” Ex.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`2004, p. 29, ll. 2-4.2 The second tier is the “reactive targeting of advertisements
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`based upon user interaction with the computer.” Id. at p. 29, ll. 4-5. This “reactive
`
`targeting” is handled in “real time”3 so that the “client software application 10 can
`
`detect [the topic of interaction] … and can display an advertisement that is relevant
`
`to this topic[.]” Id. at p. 29, ll. 14-18.
`
`Two embodiments for real time reactive targeting are envisioned in the ’705
`
`application. First, Internet addresses can be stored in the banner storage 30 at the
`
`client computer and accessed by the client software application. Id. at p. 29, ll. 22-
`
`23. Second, real time actions of the user can be “sent to ADM server 22 …,with
`
`the server using the data to select and download an appropriate advertisement.” Id.
`
`at p. 29, ll. 23-28. In either embodiment of real time reactive advertising targeting,
`
`advertising content selected for transfer to the computer is not based on the
`
`claimed “computer usage information.” This so-called “computer usage
`
`information” is not “real time” information, but rather information “stored on the
`
`end user’s computer 18 in user data storage 34,” (id. at p. 14, ll. 20-22), and from
`
`
`2 For the purpose of this Opposition, Exhibit page numbers are used.
`
`3 While the term “real time” is used in the ’705 application, “real time” is vague
`
`and indefinite because it has multiple and conflicting meanings to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`time to time reported back to the server. Id. at p. 29, ll. 5-7. While the “computer
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`usage information” is associated with the user’s demographic information (by
`
`ways of the unique ID) for profiling purposes (id. at p. 29, ll. 7-9), the real time
`
`information as described in the ’705 application is separately used to target
`
`advertising and is not associated with any other information at the server.
`
`For at least the above reasons, there is no written description support in the
`
`’705 application for the modified limitation of “selecting advertising content for
`
`transfer to the computer in accordance with real-time and other computer usage
`
`information and demographic information associated with said unique
`
`identifier,” as required by proposed claim 23 (emphasis added).
`
`C. BE Tech’s Proposed Amendment Raises Additional Patentability
`Issues
`
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully notes additional patentability issues associated with
`
`BE Tech’s proposed substitutions. The following non-exhaustive list serves as an
`
`example:
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 23 omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as
`
`described in the specification. For example, substitute claim 23 fails to disclose
`
`how the “real-time” information is collected or delivered or otherwise manipulated
`
`to be used in “selecting advertising content….” While “computer usage
`
`information” is claimed to be recorded by the computer software and periodically
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`acquired from the computer, the claim does not recite how the “real-time”
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`information is collected and acquired. Accordingly, claim 23 fails under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first paragraph, as not enabling. See M.P.E.P. § 2172.01. For similar reasons
`
`of failing to interrelate essential elements, substitute claim 23 including the term
`
`“real-time” information also fails under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for
`
`failing to point out and distinctly claim the invention. See id.
`
`The proposed “real-time” information is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`second paragraph, because it is unclear what “real-time” means. Neither the claim
`
`nor the specification clearly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art the
`
`scope of the claim. For example, the term “real-time” is unclear because it could be
`
`information that is transmitted instantaneously with no delay or transmitted after
`
`some delay within a time constraint or at the next time information packets are
`
`sent. See, e.g., Gray Decl., Ex. 1021at ¶¶ 36-38. Additionally, it is also unclear
`
`whether this “real-time” information refers to user-specific or general computer
`
`information, or whether this information refers to information originating from the
`
`user computer or is found at the server itself.
`
`The proposed “other computer usage information” is similarly indefinite
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because it is unclear what this “other
`
`computer usage information” is. Again, the claim and the specification do not
`
`sufficiently convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art if this “other computer
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`usage information” is specific to a user or general information attributed to any
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`user. It is also unclear where this “other computer usage information” is coming
`
`from. Finally, while there is antecedent basis of “computer usage information”
`
`found in proposed claim 23, there is none for “other computer usage information.”
`
`III. BE Tech’s Proposed Claims are Not Patentable Over the Prior Art
`A.
`Teachings of Logan
`As discussed in the Petition and testified to previously by Stephen Gray,
`
`
`
`Logan discloses using demographic information associated with a unique identifier
`
`to select advertising. Paper 1 at 23-24; Gray Decl, pp. 51-52; Gray testimony
`
`350:11-22. For example, Logan describes using a matching algorithm that
`
`“compare[s] the characteristics of the subscriber with the makeup of the target
`
`audience defined by the fields of the Advertisement record” to determine which of
`
`the advertisements are inserted into the Schedule Table 307 (see Ex. 1002 at 25:15-
`
`25) which is then downloaded to the player 103. Id. at 16:65-17:1.
`
`
`
`Logan also discloses that the selection process utilizes computer usage
`
`information including user’s interaction with the software program. For example,
`
`Logan’s “usage log,” which includes information about the identification, start
`
`time, volume, and playing speed of the program segments played by the user, is
`
`used in a subscriber’s TopChoices and ChoiceCounts records. Id. at 21:30-43. In
`
`turn, these TopChoices and ChoiceCounts records are used in the InterestMatch
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`function (id. at 24:33-49) which is then used to determine what advertisements are
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`of interest to a user. Id. at 24:51-25:14; see also id. at Fig. 4, element 342; 27:53-
`
`62; claim 19. Accordingly, Logan discloses the newly claimed usage information
`
`as “information about [a] user’s interactions with said computer software
`
`displaying advertising content” and “selecting advertising content for transfer to
`
`the computer in accordance with … other computer usage information4 and
`
`demographic information associated with said unique identifier[.]” See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1021 at ¶¶ 12-15.
`
`B.
`Additional Teachings of the Prior Art
`Logan does not explicitly disclose that its “usage log” contains “user’s
`
`
`
`interactions with … at least one other program,” or selecting advertising content in
`
`accordance with “real-time” information as recited by proposed claim 23. But
`
`these features were well known during time of the mid 1990s.
`
`
`
`For example, the three prior art references discussed below, by themselves
`
`or in combination, teach that it was common at the time of the ’314 Patent
`
`application to: (1) record computer usage information comprising various types of
`
`user interactions including interactions with different programs; (2) track a user’s
`
`real-time computer activities; and (3) use computer usage information and/or real-
`
`time information to select more relevant advertising content. Accordingly, it would
`
`
`4 To the extent this “other computer usage information” is even understandable.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`references with Logan, and thus proposed new claim 23 is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. See, e.g., Ex. 1021at ¶¶ 18, 24, 30, 35.
`
`Ferguson
`
`1.
`Ferguson (US Pub No. 2002/0178232 A1) was filed on December 10, 1997,
`
`
`
`and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ferguson discloses a targeted
`
`advertising system that monitors a user’s interactions with the computer. See Ex.
`
`1022 at Abstract. For example, Figure 5, reproduced below, illustrates the flow
`
`diagram of Ferguson’s invention.
`
`
`
`Ferguson discloses that the Invention Engine 400 monitors a user’s
`
`interaction with the computer including activities on the Invention Interface 404
`
`and HTTP requests issued from the browser 62. See id. at [0124]. These events are
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`stored in log files containing additional information such a date and time stamps,
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`and activated links. See id. These log files are “periodically sent to the Invention
`
`Web Server 302 which analyzes the data and provides statistics to various
`
`authorized groups (such as the content providers that host the pages) via its
`
`interface, and uses the data for targeting advertising.” Id. at [0125].
`
`
`
`Ferguson also discloses that its invention can be extended to include
`
`additional features such as “full online updating capabilities so that the most recent
`
`version of the product is automatically available to users[,]”“ad targeting systems
`
`that deliver advertising according to users’ real time surfing patterns or habits,”
`
`and “[a]utomatic logging, storage, and uploading of Page-In-View data, wherein
`
`the URL of the page on display when an ad is clicked upon is periodically reported
`
`back to the Invention Web Server.” Id. at [0206] (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`incorporate the features of usage information including interactions with other
`
`programs and real-time feedback as suggested by Ferguson into Logan for the
`
`purpose of selecting advertising content for a user that is more relevant to the
`
`user’s immediate interests, demographics, and past activities. One would be
`
`motivated to make the combination as Logan and Ferguson are both concerned
`
`with identifying more relevant targeted advertising, and by combining the
`
`approaches of both references, even more pertinent advertisements could be
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`identified. See, e.g., Logan at 25:15-25; Ferguson at ¶¶ [0123]-[0125]; Ex. 1021at
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`¶¶ 19-24.
`
`2.
`Lazarus
`Lazarus (U.S. Patent No. 6,134,532) was filed on November 14, 1997, and
`
`
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Lazarus discloses a system for
`
`selecting and presenting advertisements based on historical computer usage
`
`information as well as real-time information. As noted by Lazarus, due to the
`
`“interactive nature of the Internet and electronic commerce[, a]dvertisers need to
`
`be able to identify users of specific interests, track those interests over time ... and
`
`need to track user interests and behavior in a real-time manner.” Ex. 1023, 4:40-47.
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 2, reproduced in part below, Lazarus discloses that a “real-
`
`time ad server (RTAS) module 214 is the engine which observers the user
`
`behavior, and based on upon that behavior, selects the appropriate ad to present to
`
`the user computer 219[.]” Id. at 9:39-42.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`After receiving real-time user behavior data, RTAS module 214 sends the data (in
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`the form of user behavior vector) to the Profile Vector Update Server (PVUS)
`
`module 224 for updating of the user profile vector. See id. at 18:36-41; see also id.
`
`at 18:23-19:15. The “updated user profile vector is then used as the basis for
`
`selecting relevant ads to display to the user [wherein] [r]elevance is determined by
`
`closeness of the user profile vector to entity vectors stored in the ad vector
`
`database.” Id. at 26:18-21. Accordingly, Lazarus teaches using real-time and
`
`historical user activity to select relevant advertising. See also id. at 9:28-31.
`
`3.
`Fleming
`Fleming (U.S. Patent No. 6,230,204) was filed on December 19, 1997, and
`
`qualifies a prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Fleming discloses an advertising
`
`system that monitors several types of computer usage information. For example,
`
`the user computer 160 includes a downloaded Monitor Component 166 which
`
`monitors user interactions with the computer. See, e.g., Ex. 1024, 5:11-18; Fig. 1,
`
`reproduced in part.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`
`
`Monitor Component 166 monitors all documents including external
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`documents (e.g., webpages) and local documents that are accessed and interacted
`
`with by the user of the client computer 160. See id. at 5:11-18; 10:23-30. The
`
`documents may include advertising content. Id. at 3:6-12. Fleming also discloses
`
`that “[t]hose skilled in the art will appreciate that a variety of types of usage
`
`information can be collected (e.g., viewing text or executing embedded programs),
`
`that the interactions of a user can be monitored and recorded in a variety of ways
`
`(e.g., monitor all input from computer system input devices), and that the
`
`monitored information could be forwarded at a variety of times.” Id. at 10:61-67.
`
`Finally, Fleming notes that the forwarded computer usage information can be
`
`analyzed to determine the rating or effectiveness of the computer resources or
`
`documents. See, e.g., id. at 4:1-4; 8:5-26; Abstract.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`incorporate the features of monitoring real-time information as suggested by
`
`Lazarus into the system of Logan for the purpose of providing a system that is
`
`sensitive to changing user behavior in an interactive environment such as the
`
`Internet. See Lazarus at 4:39-47. Because both Logan and Lazarus are directed to
`
`the technical field of delivering targeted advertisement (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:7-10,
`
`5:31-36, 25:4-25; Ex. 1023 at 9:39-42), one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that adding real-time information of Lazarus into the system of Logan
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`would improve the effectiveness of the targeted ads of Logan and would encourage
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`subscribers of Logan’s system to interact with more ads. See, e.g., Ex. 1021at ¶¶
`
`25-30.
`
`It would have been further obvious to incorporate the features of monitoring
`
`various types of programs and various types of usage information as suggested by
`
`Fleming into the system of Lazarus and Logan for the purpose of determining the
`
`effectiveness of certain advertisements. See, e.g., Fleming at 4:1-4; Ex. 1021at ¶¶
`
`31-35. Like Lazarus and Logan, Fleming is also directed to better targeting ads to
`
`users. See Ex. 1024 at 4:1-4; 8:5-26; Abstract. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that adding the ability of monitoring various types of program, as
`
`disclosed in Fleming, into the system of Lazarus and Logan would improve the
`
`ability to match ads to users based on the activities of the users on the various
`
`programs. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that an
`
`improved mechanism of delivering targeted ads would encourage potential
`
`advertisers to subscribe to the system of Lazarus and Logan, as improved by
`
`Fleming. See, e.g., Ex. 1021at ¶¶ 12-15, 25-35.
`
`One would be further motivated to combine Logan, Lazarus, and Fleming
`
`because it would have been “obvious to try.” See M.P.E.P. § 2143(I)(E) . For
`
`example, Lazarus discloses a known method of refining the user profile based on
`
`real-time tracking related to Internet advertising (Ex. 1023, 4:40-47). Fleming
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`discloses a known method for refining determining the effectiveness of advertising
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`
`
`content related to Internet advertising. See Ex. 1024 at 4:1-4. Because Logan
`
`selects advertising content to present to a user by comparing user profile with
`
`advertising content (see Ex. 1002 at Fig. 4, 342; 27:53-62), it would have been
`
`“obvious to try” the known methods taught by Lazarus and Fleming in Logan to
`
`improve the accuracy of the comparison between the user profile and the
`
`advertising content to determine more relevant targeted advertising.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should deny or dismiss BE Tech’s
`
`Motion to Amend.
`
`Dated: September 10, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Clinton H. Brannon/
`
`Clinton H. Brannon
`
`Reg. No. 57,887
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`
`1999 K Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`Counsel for Google Inc.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 to Hoyle
`1002
`U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 to Logan
`1003
`U.S. Patent No. 5,918,014 to Robinson
`1004
`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`1005
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314
`1006
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010
`1007
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
`1008
`Barry M. Leiner et al., Brief History of the Internet, Internet Society
`(Oct. 15, 2012),
`http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Brief_History_of_th
`e_Internet.pdf
`“Hypertext Markup Language,” Network Working Group Request
`for Comments 1866, November 1995
`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)
`“The Common Gateway Interface (CGI) Version 1.1,” Network
`Working Group Request for Comments 3875, October 2004
`Application Server Product Vendors, Service-Architecture.com,
`http://www.service-
`architecture.com/products/application_servers.html (last visited Sep.
`28, 2013)
`“HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working Group
`Request for Comments 2109, February 1997
`“HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working Group
`Request for Comments 6265, April 2011
`“Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program,” Network
`Working Group Request for Comments 675, December 1974
`Netscape Homepage, Netscape.com,
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961219074448/http://www7.netscape.c
`om/ (last visited Oct. 4, 2013)
`Download Netscape Communicator or Netscape Navigator Software,
`Netscape.com,
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961230200703/http://www.netscape.co
`m/comprod/mirror/client_download.html (last visited Oct. 8, 2013)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0178232 to Ferguson
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1018
`U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 to Filepp
`1019
`Stephen Gray Curriculum Vitae
`1020
`Deposition Transcript of Neil Goldstein
`(NEW)
`1021
`(NEW)
`1022
`(NEW)
`1023
`(NEW)
`1024
`(NEW)
`1025
`(NEW)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,532 to Lazarus
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,230,204 to Fleming
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
`selected pages, (6th ed. 1996)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00038
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), I, Clinton Brannon, hereby certify that a
`
`copy of the foregoing PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND has been served via electronic
`
`mail transmission on the Attorney of Record for related inter partes review
`
`petitions of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (Nos. IPR2014-00038) at the following
`
`address:
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Daniel J. Weinberg
`Jessica N. Leal
`FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG LLP
`350 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`jangell@fawlaw.com
`rfreitas@fawlaw.com
`dweinberg@fawlaw.com
`jleal@fawlaw.com
`
`Dated: September 10, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Clinton H. Brannon/
`
`Clinton H. Brannon
`
`Reg. No. 57,887
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`1
`
`

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