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 IPR2014-00053
`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 IPR2014-00053
`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 IPR2014-00053
`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. 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. 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
`IPR2014-00052. Additionally, the ’314 patent is the subject of these inter
`partes reviews: IPR2014-00038 and IPR2014-00039.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00053
`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. 1001, 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 IPR2014-00053
`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 IPR2014-00053
`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 IPR2014-00053
`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, 8-60):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Angles,1 Guyot,2 and Fox3
`Angles and Shaw4
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`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. 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. 5,933,811 (Ex. 1003) (“Angles”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,119,098 (Ex. 1005) (“Guyot”).
`3 DAVID FOX & TROY DOWNING, WEB PUBLISHER’S CONSTRUCTION KIT WITH
`HTML 3.2, at 547-92 (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1033) (“Fox”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,809,242 (Ex. 1004) (“Shaw”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`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. 7.
`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. 1021, 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. 6 (citing Ex. 1021, 4). Petitioner further
`contends that this ordinary meaning for “associating” also should include
`both indirect and direct “associating.” Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`The 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 “to connect or join together,” either directly
`or indirectly.
`B. Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 – Obvious over Angles and Shaw
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Angles and Shaw. Pet. 35-60. In
`support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed by Angles
`and Shaw. In its explanations, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Robert J.
`Sherwood (Ex. 1007).
`1. Angles (Ex. 1003)
`Angles discloses a system for an on-line advertising service that can
`custom tailor specific advertisements to particular consumers and track
`consumer responses to the advertisements. Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 45-49. A
`consumer registers with an advertisement provider by entering demographic
`information into the advertisement provider’s demographic database. Id. at
`col. 3, ll. 18-21. The advertisement provider assigns the consumer a unique
`member code. Id. at col. 3, ll. 24-25. The consumer is provided software
`that enhances the consumer’s Internet browser so that custom advertisements
`can be merged with electronic documents provided by the content provider.
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 25-29. The advertisement provider obtains the unique
`member code from the consumer’s computer. Id. at col. 3, ll. 54-56. The
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00053
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conssumer memmber code iis used to iidentify thee consumeer’s demog
`raphic
`
`
`inforrmation annd preferennces. Id. att col. 3, ll.
`
`
`
`
`56-58. Thhe consumeer’s
`propriate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`demographic innformationn and prefeerences aree used to seelect an ap
`
`
`
`adveertisement for the connsumer. Idd. at col. 3,, ll. 58-61.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The systtem for prooviding on--line custoom advertissements is
`
`
`Figuure 1 as follows:
`
`
`
`set forth inn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustratess the interaaction betwween consuumer comp
`uter 12,
`
`er computeer 14, and advertisemment providder compuuter 18. Id.
`ent provid
`cont
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at cool. 4, ll. 50--53. A connsumer dirrects consuumer compputer 12 to
`
`establish aa
`
`
`commmunicationns link witth content pprovider coomputer 144. Id. at cool. 7, ll. 53
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`consumer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55. Content prrovider commputer 14 transfers eelectronic ppage 32 to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compputer 12, wwhere electtronic pagee 32 contaiins embeddded adverttisement
`
`
`
`requuest 26. Id.. at col. 7, ll. 55-60.
`
`
`
`The embeddded adverrtisement rrequest 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`direccts consummer computter 12 to esstablish a ccommunicaations linkk with
`
`
`
`
`
`adveertisement provider computer 18. Id. at cool. 7, ll. 611-65. Adveertisementt
`
`
`
`uter 18 ob
`
`
`
`
`tains consuumer memmber code 222 and usess consume
`r
`
`provvider comp
`ics
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memmber code 222 to accesss the conssumer’s proofile in a ddemograph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`databbase. Id. aat col. 8, ll.. 10-13. AAdvertisemeent provideer computeer 18
`
`
`
`
`
`seleccts approprriate custommized adveertisementt 30 based
`
`on the connsumer’s
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`profile and sends customized advertisement 30 to consumer computer 12.
`Id. at col. 8, ll. 13-17.
`2. Shaw (Ex. 1004)
`Shaw discloses an electronic mail system that displays targeted
`advertisements to remote users when the users are off-line. Ex. 1004, 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
`the user. Id. at col. 5, ll. 14-16. The client program periodically
`communicates with a server system. Id. at col. 3, ll. 35-36. The server
`system transmits eligible advertisements to the client program when the
`client program establishes a connection with the server system. Id. at col. 5,
`ll. 19-24. The advertisements are stored on the user’s client computer so that
`advertisements can be displayed when the user is not on-line. Id. at col. 5, ll.
`32-35. The e-mail system for providing targeted advertisements is set forth
`in Figure 1 as follows:
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2014--00053
`14 B1
`
`Patennt 6,628,3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` illustratess the e-maiil system thhat transmiits and dispplays
`Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 13-114. 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.
`
`3. Analyysis
`
`d The eviidence set fforth by Peetitioner inndicates a rreasonable likelihood
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that Petitioner will prevail in showiing that claaims 11-133, 15, 18, aand 20 are
`
`
`
`
`
`unpaatentable uunder 35 U.S.C. § 1033(a) as obvvious over
`
`Angles annd Shaw.
`
`
`11 recites aa method oof
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 35-60. Foor example, independdent claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclloses a system and mmethod for oon-line advvertising, wwhere a coomputer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`storees demograaphic inforrmation aboout consummers and seends custoomized
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10033, col. 2, ll. 45-49; cool. 3, ll. 6-111.
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 further reecites “prooviding a seerver that iis accessibble via a
`
`
`
`
`
`compputer netwwork” and ““permittingg a computter user to
`
`
`access saidd server viia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`said computer network.” Angles diiscloses coonsumer coomputer 122 connects
`
`adveertisementss to the connsumers baased on thee demograpphic informmation. Exx.
`
`provviding demmographicallly-targetedd advertisiing to a commputer useer. Angless
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`to content provider computer 14 by use of a communication medium, and
`content provider computer 14 transfers electronic page 32 to consumer
`computer 12. Id. at col. 7, ll. 48-60. Angles further discloses that the
`program that responds to such a request is a Web server. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1-3.
`Accordingly, content provider computer 14 is understood to be a Web
`server.
`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.” Angles discloses that a consumer registers with the
`advertisement provider by entering demographic information into a provided
`HTML document. Id. at col. 14, ll. 16-19. The demographic data includes
`age, sex, income, career, interest, hobbies, consumer preferences, the
`account number of the consumer’s Internet provider, and other information.
`Id. at col. 14, ll. 19-23.
`Claim 11 further recites “providing the user with download access to
`computer software that, when run on a computer, displays advertising
`content.” Angles discloses that, during the registration process, the
`registration module transfers the consumer member code and consumer
`control module to the consumer computer. Id. at col. 17, ll. 25-30; Fig. 5.
`The consumer control module is a software plug-in that works in
`conjunction with the consumer browser. Id. at col. 23, ll. 13-15.
`Accordingly, the consumer control module, or software plug-in, is
`downloaded to the consumer computer. The consumer control module
`combines customized advertisements with an electronic page and displays
`the advertisements to the consumer. Id. at col. 23, ll. 43-46.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`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.” Angles
`discloses that the registration module assigns a unique consumer member
`code to the consumer. Id. at col. 17, ll. 11-17; Fig. 5. The registration
`module further stores the consumer member code and the consumer’s
`demographic data in the registration database. Id. at col. 17, ll. 18-20; Fig.
`5. Subsequently, the consumer member code is used to access the
`consumer’s profile, where the profile includes the consumer’s demographic
`information. Id. at col. 3, ll. 19-29; col. 8, ll. 56-58.
`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,
`the advertisement provider uses the consumer member code to access the
`consumer’s profile and selects appropriate advertisements based on the
`consumer’s profile. Id. at col. 8, ll. 56-61. The advertisement provider
`computer then sends the customized advertisement to the consumer. Id.
`Claim 11 lastly recites “associating said computer usage information
`with said demographic information using said unique identifier.” Angles
`discloses that when a consumer selects an advertisement, the consumer
`control module sends this usage information to the advertising module. Id.
`at col. 20, ll. 21-30. This information is stored in the accounting database
`and allows the advertising module to monitor what goods and services the
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`consumer desires. Id. In other words, this usage information is associated
`with the demographic information that describes the consumer.
`Petitioner concedes that Angles does not describe “computer software
`that . . . records computer usage information concerning the user’s utilization
`of the computer.” Pet. 40. Petitioner argues that Angles discloses
`“computer usage information” in that, when a consumer selects an
`advertisement, the consumer control module sends this usage information to
`the advertising module. Id. at 39-40 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 20, ll. 21-30).
`Petitioner, however, specifically argues that, although Angles discloses
`monitoring “computer usage information,” Angles does not “expressly
`disclose that the software stores this computer usage information in a
`persistent storage medium on the client computer—the usage information is
`sent back to the server in response to the user action.” Id. at 40. Petitioner
`argues that Shaw describes “computer software that . . . records computer
`usage information concerning the user’s utilization of the computer.” Shaw
`discloses a client program that records when and how long the client
`program was used. Ex. 1004, 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.
`Petitioner also concedes that Angles fails to disclose “computer
`software that . . . periodically requests additional advertising content” and
`“periodically acquiring said unique identifier and said computer usage
`information recorded by said software from the computer via said computer
`network.” Pet. 43-44, 52-54. Petitioner argues that Angles discloses
`updating advertising content, where the advertisement module updates
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`customized advertisements that are seen on a consumer’s computer. Pet. 43-
`44 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 20, ll. 11-17). Petitioner, however, specifically
`argues that, although Angles describes updating advertising content, Shaw
`discloses periodically requesting additional advertising content. Id. Shaw
`describes that the client program periodically communicates with the server
`system. Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 34-35. 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 and showcase 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.
`Petitioner concedes that Angles fails to disclose “transferring a copy
`of said software to the computer in response to a download request by the
`user.” Pet. 46-47. Petitioner argues that Angles discloses transferring a
`consumer control module, which is a software plug-in. Id. (citing Ex. 1003,
`col. 3, ll. 18-29; col. 23, ll. 8-15; Fig. 5). Petitioner, however, acknowledges
`that Angles does not expressly describe that the transferring of the software
`is in response to an explicit request by the user. Id. Shaw describes that a
`user will install a client program on a client computer by executing an install
`program. Ex. 1004, 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 requests the client
`program and the program is provided to the user for installation.
`Petitioner argues that both Angles and Shaw are directed toward
`systems and methods for providing targeted advertising to users over the
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Internet using client/server architectures. Pet. 41, 45, 54. Petitioner further
`argues that all of the elements of claim 11 are disclosed by Angles and Shaw
`with no change to their respective functions and combining Angles and
`Shaw to produce a system with all of the features would render nothing more
`than predictable results. Id. at 41-42, 45-46, 48, 54-55. Petitioner
`additionally argues that the combination of Angles and Shaw 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 Angles and Shaw would have
`been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art and such a
`combination would render nothing more than predictable results. Ex. 1007
`¶¶ 68-69. 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 Angles
`and Shaw.
`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 are
`obvious over Angles and Shaw.
`C. Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 – Obvious over Angles, Guyot, and Fox
`Petitioner contends that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Angles, Guyot, and Fox. Pet. 9-
`35. 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).
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`D. Consolidation with IPR2014-00052
`We acknowledge Petitioner’s request that this Petition “be
`consolidated with” the Petition in IPR2014-00052, also filed by Petitioner,
`because both Petitions challenge the validity of claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20
`of the ’314 patent. Pet. 60. 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 grounds:
`Obviousness of claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 over Angles and Shaw.
`FURTHER 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`
`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. 48756, 48765-66 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONERS:
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
