`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-000391
`Patent 6,628,314
`___________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.23)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00738 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner B.E. Technology, L.L.C. respectfully submits this reply to the
`
`opposition of Petitioner to its Contingent Motion to Amend.
`
`I. MICROSOFT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS HAVE NO
`MERIT.
`
`Under a heading noting the absence of claim constructions, Microsoft
`
`mentions “new claim language” but it is not clear which terms it claims to be in
`
`need of construction. Microsoft mentions an alleged reordering of “the sequence
`
`of steps in the claim,” but there is no reordering of consequence. Merely placing
`
`limitations in a different order does not necessarily alter the meaning of the
`
`limitations or the claim. Microsoft then argues that the purported change in
`
`dependence has enlarged the scope of Claim 22 because it has resulted in the
`
`omission of “limitations present in the original claim by its dependence on original
`
`dependent claim 22 [sic].” Microsoft also appears to complain that “real-time and
`
`other computer usage information” was not made the subject of a specific claim
`
`construction. “Computer usage information” was defined in the ’705 application.
`
`(Ex. 2005 at 6). “Other” requires no construction. Here, “other computer usage
`
`information” obviously means “computer usage information other than real-time
`
`computer usage information.” Microsoft has misread the claims.
`
`Throughout the ’705 application, “real-time” is used in a manner referring to
`
`what is occurring while the user is engaged in a given activity. In the Abstract,
`
`there is a reference to what happens “when the user runs the program.” Elsewhere,
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`the reference is to matters “relevant to what the user is doing at any particular
`
`time.” (Id. at 16:9:14). A prior art patent that refers to advertisement queues that
`
`are prepared off-line is distinguished as not providing for “real time targeting of
`
`advertising based upon user actions.” (Id. at 3:30-32).
`
`II. DESCRIPTION SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED CLAIMS.
`In Ariad Pharm. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
`
`the Federal Circuit held that the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 is satisfied when the application “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art
`
`that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
`
`Proposed substitute Claim 23 provides for advertising content to be selected in
`
`accordance with “real-time and other computer usage information and
`
`demographic information associated with” a unique identifier. “Real-time
`
`computer usage information” and “other computer usage information,” i.e.,
`
`“computer usage information” other than “real-time computer usage information
`
`are both supported, and the use of both to select advertising are also supported.
`
`In multiple places, the ’705 application refers to the use of “other computer
`
`usage information,” or to both “real-time computer usage information” and “other
`
`computer usage information” in a manner sufficient to advise one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that the applicant was in possession of an invention including the use of
`
`“other computer usage information.” (See Exhibit 2005 at 1, 6). The disclosed
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“normal user interaction, or use, of the computer” would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill as including “computer usage information” as it is defined.
`
`This disclosure of the use of computer usage information to target
`
`information is not limited to the use of “real-time computer usage information.”
`
`The original claim language did not call for the computer usage information to be
`
`used to select advertising, but the computer usage information was to be associated
`
`with “the demographic information using the unique identifier.” (Id. at 10, 41).
`
`The ’705 application disclosed the use of computer usage information to select
`
`advertising, and the disclosure was not limited to the use of “real-time computer
`
`usage information.”
`
`There is a clear disclosure of the transmission of computer usage
`
`information “for use in . . . better targeting future,” i.e., not real-time,
`
`“advertising.” The reference to the transmission and storage of computer usage
`
`information “for use in . . . better targeting future advertising” is a disclosure of the
`
`use of computer usage information other than “real-time computer usage
`
`information” to target advertising.
`
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT INDEFINITE.
`Microsoft’s assertion that the defined term “computer usage information” is
`
`indefinite has no merit, and its attempt to link a purported problem with this term
`
`to a broader or different problem with the terms “real-time computer usage
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information” or “other computer usage information” similarly has no basis.
`
`IV. THE PROPOSED CLAIMS ARE PATENTABLE OVER PRIOR ART.
`Microsoft’s patentability arguments are also without merit. Guyot (Exhibit
`
`1006) does not disclose all of the limitations of the original Claim 11 for the reason
`
`explained in Patent Owner’s response to Microsoft’s petition. (See Paper 30 at 9-
`
`25). Guyot further does not disclose using computer usage information that
`
`“comprises information about the user’s interactions with said computer software
`
`displaying advertising content and at least one other program.” Guyot makes no
`
`mention of the client application tracking what the user does after the initial launch
`
`of the Internet link.
`
`Robinson (Exhibit 1007) does not teach all of the limitations of the original
`
`Claim 11 and does not teach or suggest all of the additional limitations of the
`
`proposed substitute claims. Microsoft ignores Robinson’s disclosure that a “Smart
`
`Ad Box is an area on a Web page.” (See Ex. 1007 at 4:8-13). The Smart Ad Box
`
`is a part of the web page, and rendered by a browser (i.e., one program).
`
`Greer (Ex. 1031) does not collect and use real-time computer usage
`
`information. Although Greer discusses becoming aware of the programs on a
`
`user’s computer, Greer fails to mention tracking the user’s interactions with any
`
`program outside of the browser. (Ex. 1031 at ¶ 0014).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. MICROSOFT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A MOTIVATION TO
`COMBINE ANY REFERENCES.
`
`Mr. Hough’s lengthy declaration is surprisingly short in addressing an
`
`alleged motivation to combine Guyot and Robinson. See Ex. 1028 at ¶¶ 145-154.
`
`Most of Mr. Hough’s discussion is focused on comparing Guyot and Robinson,
`
`culminating in a conclusion that Guyot and Robinson are similar enough in kind
`
`that one of ordinary skill would find their teachings combinable. See, e.g., id.at ¶
`
`153. Other than a simple assertion, that is unconnected to any specific opinions
`
`about why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to alter Guyot or
`
`Robinson in a way that would incorporate the teachings of the other, Mr. Hough
`
`offers nothing regarding an actual motivating to combine. Using Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed amended claim as a “roadmap” to find the elements is precisely the type
`
`of hindsight obviousness analysis that has long been forbidden by the Federal
`
`Circuit. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The proposed combination of Guyot and Greer suffers from similar failings.
`
`See generally Ex. 1028 at ¶¶ 155-166. Mr. Hough presents the conclusions that
`
`one of ordinary skill would recognize “the processes used in both Greer and Guyot
`
`are very similar.” Ex. 1028 at ¶¶ 163. Mr. Hough’s opinion that one of ordinary
`
`skill would have “recognized benefits” from combining the references in a way
`
`that would produce a system having all elements of the proposed amended claim
`
`does not establish a motivation to make such a combination.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 10, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that copies of the PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`AMEND have been served on Petitioner as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) via
`
`electronic mail transmission addressed to the persons at the address below:
`
`[Insert service info]
`
`Date: July 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`