Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`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 10
`
`
` Entered: April 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`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 IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Facebook, 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. 1101, “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. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-cv-2769-JPM (W.D.
`Tenn.), filed on September 7, 2012. Pet. 1.
`Petitioner also seeks review of the ’314 patent in inter partes review
`IPR2014-00053. Additionally, the ’314 patent is the subject of these inter
`partes reviews: IPR2014-00038 and IPR2014-00039.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00052
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`B. Thee ’314 Pattent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’3144 patent relates to useer interfacees that proovide adverrtising
`obta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ined over aa global coomputer neetwork. Exx. 1101, cool. 1, ll. 12--16. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’3144 patent disscloses a cllient softwware applicaation that ccomprises
`
`a graphicaal
`
`
`
`
`user interface ((GUI) proggram moduule and an
`
`advertisingg and data
`
`
`
`
`
`agement (AADM) moddule. Id. aat col. 6, ll.. 64-67. Thhe GUI coomprises
`man
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multtiple regionns, includinng a first reegion commprising a nnumber of
`user
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selecctable itemms and a seccond regioon comprisiing an infoormation ddisplay
`
`regioon, such ass banner addvertisements. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 4, ll. 224-37. Proogram
`
`
`
`
`
`moddules associated with the GUI sttore statistiical data reegarding thhe display
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of thhe selected informatioonal data, aallowing thhe targetinng of banneer
`
`
`
`
`adveertisementss based upoon the typee of link seelected by tthe user. IId. at col. 44,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ll. 433-51. The system forr selecting and providding adverrtisements
`
`is set forthh
`
`
`in Fiigure 3 as ffollows:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a block diagram of a system distributing
`advertisements over the Internet. Id. at col. 6, ll. 21-22. ADM server 22 is
`accessible by client computers 40 over Internet 20, where client computers
`40 have the client software application installed. Id. at col. 8, ll. 32-35.
`ADM server has associated with it Ad Database 44 and User/Demographics
`Database 46. Id. at col. 8, ll. 38-43. Ad Database 44 stores banner
`advertising that is provided to client computers 40. Id. User/Demographics
`Database 46 stores demographic information used in targeting advertising
`downloaded to individual client computers 40. Id. at col. 8, ll. 55-57.
`When a user first accesses the client software application for the
`purposes of downloading and installing the application, the user submits
`demographic information that is used to determine what advertising is
`provided to the user. Id. at col. 8, ll. 57-62. The demographic information is
`submitted by the user by entering the information into a form provided to the
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`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 Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent.
`Independent claim 11 is illustrative of the claims at issue and follows:
`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
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`associating said computer usage information with said
`demographic information using said unique identifier.
`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. § 103, as follows (see Pet. 3-4, 9-51):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Shaw1 and W3C2
`Logan3
`Logan and Merriman4
`
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`11-13, 15, 18, and 20
`11-13, 18, and 20
`15
`
`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. 48756, 48766 (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. 5,809,242 (Ex. 1103) (“Shaw”).
`2 Melissa Dunn et al., Privacy and Profiling on the Web (Jun. 1, 1997),
`available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-Web-privacy.html (Ex. 1105)
`(“W3C”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 (Ex. 1107) (“Logan”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,948,061 (Ex. 1108) (“Merriman”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`1. “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 “periodically”
`should be construed to mean “recurring from time to time.” Pet. 8.
`Petitioner bases this construction on the dictionary definition of
`“periodically,” which includes “(1) having or marked by repeated cycles; (2)
`happening or appearing at regular intervals; or (3) recurring or reappearing
`from time to time; intermittent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1125, 6). We agree with
`Petitioner. The Specification does not provide a special definition for
`“periodically,” and the claims do not limit further the scope of periodically.
`Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable definition
`provided by the dictionary is “(3) recurring or reappearing from time to
`time; intermittent” because this definition does not require regular cycles or
`intervals. Additionally, the broadest reasonable meaning of “periodically”
`does not require the recurrence or reappearance to be at a specific interval.
`Accordingly, we construe “periodically” to mean “recurring from time to
`time, at regular or irregular time intervals.”
`2. “associating”
`Claim 11 recites “associating said unique identifier with demographic
`information in a database” and “associating said computer usage information
`with said demographic information using said unique identifier.” Petitioner
`contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of “associating” is “to connect
`or join together, combine.” Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1125, 4). Petitioner further
`contends that this ordinary meaning for “associating” also should include
`both indirect and direct “associating.” Id. We agree with Petitioner. The
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Specification does not provide a special definition for “associating.” As
`discussed by Petitioner, claim 11, under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, requires that the datasets of usage information and
`demographic information be associated, directly or indirectly, using the
`unique identifier. Id. Accordingly, we adopt the ordinary meaning and
`construe “associating” to mean “connecting or joining together,” either
`directly or indirectly.
`B. Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 – Obvious over Shaw and W3C
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shaw and W3C. Pet. 10-32. In
`support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed by Shaw
`and W3C. In its explanations, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Robert J.
`Sherwood (Ex. 1111).
`1. Shaw (Ex. 1103)
`Shaw discloses an electronic mail system that displays targeted
`advertisements to remote users when the users are off-line. Ex. 1103, col. 1,
`ll. 8-11. Shaw discloses that a user operates a client computer that runs a
`client program. Id. at col. 3, ll. 24-26. The client program allows a user to
`read, write, edit, send, receive, and store electronic mail. Id. at col. 3, ll. 56-
`58. The client program displays advertisements to the user when the user is
`composing emails. Id. at col. 4, ll. 4-6.
`The user completes a member profile that includes information about
`the user, such as hobbies, interests, employment, education, sports,
`demographics, etc. Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-9. The server system utilizes the user’s
`entered information to determine which advertisements should be directed to
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00052
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the uuser. Id. att col. 5, ll. 14-16. Thhe client prrogram perriodically
`
`
`
`
`ver systemm. Id. at cool. 3, ll. 35--36. The sserver
`with a ser
`
`commmunicates
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systeem transmiits eligible advertisemments to thhe client prrogram whhen the
`
`system. Idd. at col. 5
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`cliennt programm establishees a connecction with tthe server
`
`
`
`
`
`ll. 199-24. The advertisemments are sstored on thhe user’s c
`
`
`lient compputer so thaat
`
`adveertisementss can be dissplayed whhen the useer is not onn-line. Id.
`l.
`
`
`
`
`
`at col. 5, l
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32-335. The emmail systemm for providding targetted advertiisements iss set forth
`
`
`in Fiigure 1 as ffollows:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustratess the email
`system th
`
`
`at transmitts and dispplays
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adveertisementss to users wwhen compposing emaails. Cliennt computerr 101
`
`
`commmunicates with serveer system 1107 via nettwork 103.. Id. at coll. 9, ll. 31-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35. Server sysstem 107 inncludes dattabase mannagement ssystem 1066. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10, ll. 14-115. The usser is proviided with ssoftware, eeither on diisk or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electtronically ddownloadeed over thee Internet, wwhich is exxecuted onn client
`
`
`
`compputer 101. Id. at col.. 10, ll. 44--48.
`
`
`
`5) 2. W3CC (Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`W3C is directed too the personnalization
`
`
`and targetting of infoormation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for ccustomers uusing demoographic innformationn, where thhe customeers providee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`demographic innformationn once andd retain conntrol over hhow the infformation
`is di
`
`sclosed. EEx. 1105, 1
`
`
`
`
`-2. Users are enableed to createe one or moore
`
`9
`
`
`
`persoonae, whicch describee the role thhe user wisshes to releease to a wwebsite. Idd.
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00052
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 4. A personna includes an identififier, UserIDD, and demmographic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation, suuch as birthhday, gendder, level oof educationn, marital
`status,
`
`
`
`
`nummber of chilldren, and iincome levvel. Id. at 55-6. The ppersonae arre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`single proofile for a uuser. Id. att 4. The usser profile
`
`associated to a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation is stored locaally in ordeer for the cclient softwware to proovide
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation to websites. Id. at 7. UUsers are pprovided ann interface
`
`
`
`
`mainntain their profile infoformation. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The exchhange of ppersona infoformation i
`
`folloows:
`
`
`
` in order too
`
`
`
`s illustrateed in Figuree 2 as
`
`b
`
`
`
`
`website. IId. at Fig. 22. The we
`
`
`
`The cliennt requestss a documeent from a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`site oor server reesponds wwith a requeest for perssonal informmation froom the
`
`
`cliennt and a staatement of how this innformationn is to be uused. Id. att 8. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cliennt defines rrules for acccessing annd acquirinng data, an
`
`d the serveer only
`
`receiives the reqquested daata if the ruules are sattisfied. Id.
`
`
`
`
` at 8-9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The perssona informmation furtther includdes “click-sstream” infformation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. aat 6. Click--stream infformation ddescribes aa user’s acttivity on a
`Web site.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. aat 12. The Web browwsers keep ttrack of thhe user’s brrowsing beehavior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locallly. Id. Thhis informaation perioodically is pposted bacck to the WWeb server.
`Id.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`3. Analysis
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shaw and W3C. Pet.
`10-32. For example, independent claim 11 recites a method of providing
`demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user. Shaw describes an
`electronic mail system that displays targeted advertisements to remote users.
`Ex. 1103, col. 1, ll. 8-11. The system utilizes demographic information
`stored in the client profile to determine which advertisements to provide to a
`user. Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-16.
`
`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.” As discussed above, Shaw discloses that client
`computer 101 selectively communicates with server system 104 over
`network 103, where the server system is coupled to network 103 via
`communications server 105. Id. at col. 9, ll. 31-35; Fig. 1.
`Claim 11 also recites “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.” Shaw discloses that a user completes a member profile when
`first using the system. Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-7. The member profile includes
`information about the user, such as hobbies, interests, employment,
`education, sports, and demographics. Id. at col. 5, ll. 7-9. As such, Shaw
`discloses requesting a user to submit demographic information for a member
`profile.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`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.” Shaw discloses that a user is provided with software, i.e., the
`client program, either on a disk or downloaded over the Internet. Id. at col.
`10, ll. 44-48. Advertisements are displayed continuously during the
`operation of the client software. Id. at col. 13, ll. 5-11. Shaw further
`discloses the client program periodically communicates with the server
`system. Id. at col. 3, ll. 34-35. The client program records when and how
`long the client program was used. Id. at col. 7, ll. 3-13. The client program
`further records “other statistical information useful to predict a user’s future
`behavior.” Id. This information is stored in an event log file on the client
`computer and is communicated to the server system. Id. The client
`computer connects to the server system and transmits an event log file and
`an advertisements statistics file. Id. at col. 20, ll. 28-36. These files are used
`to determine which advertisements are eligible for downloading to a
`particular user. Id. at col. 20, ll. 40-44. New banner advertisements are
`transmitted from the mail server to the user when the user connects to the
`mail server. Id. at col. 20, ll. 64-67.
`Claim 11 additionally recites “transferring a copy of said software to
`the computer in response to a download request by the user.” Shaw
`discloses that a user will install a client program on a client computer by
`executing an install program. Id. at col. 10, ll. 48-50. The user is provided
`with a copy of the client program on disk or electronically downloaded over
`the Internet. Id. at col. 10, ll. 44-48. In other words, the user implicitly
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`requests the client program, and the program is provided to the user for
`installation.
`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.” As discussed above,
`Shaw discloses that a user completes a member profile when first using the
`system. Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-7. The member profile includes information about
`the user, such as hobbies, interests, employment, education, sports, and
`demographics. Id. at col. 5, ll. 7-9. The server system utilizes the member
`profile information to determine which advertisements to select for the user.
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 13-15. Advertisements are transmitted from the mail server
`to the user when the user connects to the mail server. Id. at col. 5, ll. 18-23;
`col. 20, ll. 64-67. Shaw discloses a unique email address associated with
`each user; however, as discussed below, Petitioner also relies on W3C to
`describe a unique identifier. Id. at col. 12, ll. 6-12.
`Claim 11 also recites “periodically acquiring said unique identifier
`and said computer usage information recorded by said software from the
`computer via said computer network.” Shaw describes that the client
`program periodically communicates with the server system. Id. at col. 3, ll.
`34-35. The client computer connects to the server system and transmits an
`event log file and advertisements statistics file. Id. at col. 20, ll. 28-36.
`These files are used to determine which advertisements are eligible for
`downloading to a particular user. Id. at col. 20, ll. 40-44. New banner
`advertisements are transmitted from the mail server to the user when the user
`connects to the mail server. Id. at col. 20, ll. 64-67.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`Claim 11 lastly recites “associating said computer usage information
`with said demographic information using said unique identifier.” As
`discussed above, Shaw describes that the client program periodically
`communicates with the server system. Id. at col. 3, ll. 34-35. The client
`computer connects to the server system and transmits an event log file and
`advertisements statistics file. Id. at col. 20, ll. 28-36. These files are used to
`determine which advertisements are eligible for downloading to a particular
`user. Id. at col. 20, ll. 40-44. New banner advertisements are transmitted
`from the mail server to the user when the user connects to the mail server.
`Id. at col. 20, ll. 64-67.
`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.” Shaw
`describes a unique email address is associated with each user and this unique
`email address is used when connecting to the server system to send member
`profile information. Id. at col. 12, ll. 6-12, 59-65. Petitioner argues that
`although Shaw discloses that the e-mail address is unique, W3C provides a
`more advanced technique for assigning a unique identifier. Pet. 16-17.
`W3C describes a unique User ID to identify uniquely a user independent of
`Web site affiliation. Ex. 1105, 7. A user creates a persona that associates
`the User ID with demographic information. Id. at 5-6.
`Petitioner argues that both Shaw and W3C are directed towards
`systems and methods for providing targeted advertising to users over the
`Internet using client/server architectures. Pet. 18-19, 22. Petitioner further
`argues that all of the elements of claim 11 are disclosed by Shaw and W3C
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`with no change to their respective functions and combining Shaw and W3C
`to produce a system with all of the features would render nothing more than
`predictable results. Id. at 18-19, 22, 25-26. Petitioner additionally argues
`that the combination of Shaw and W3C involves nothing more than known
`computer techniques to improve a similar advertising system in the same
`way. Id. The Sherwood declaration supports Petitioner’s argument that the
`combination of Shaw and W3C would have been obvious to a person with
`ordinary skill in the art and that such a combination would render nothing
`more than predictable results. Ex. 1111, ¶ 54. In light of these contentions,
`we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent
`are unpatentable as obvious over Shaw and W3C.
`4. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail in showing that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 patent
`would have been obvious over Shaw and W3C.
`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. 32-49. 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).
`D. Claim 15 – Obvious over Logan and Merriman
`Petitioner contends that claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Logan and Merriman. Pet. 49-51. Having
`reviewed this ground of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner, we exercise
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`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).
`E. Consolidation with IPR2014-00053
`We acknowledge Petitioner’s request that this Petition “be
`consolidated with” the Petition in IPR2014-00053, also filed by Petitioner,
`because both Petitions challenge the validity of claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20
`of the ’314 patent. Pet. 51. Both parties should be prepared to discuss
`possible consolidation of IPR2014-00052 and IPR2014-00053 during the
`initial conference call with the Board at the date and time set forth below.
`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.
`
`
`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 ground:
`Obviousness of claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 over Shaw and W3C.
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds raised in the Petition are
`authorized for inter partes review.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`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 3:30 PM, Eastern Time on May 7, 2014; the parties are
`directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide5 for guidance in preparing
`for the initial conference call and should come prepared to discuss any
`proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions
`the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`5 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765-66 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00052
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`COOLEY, LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
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
