UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MATCH.COM LLC and PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR Case No.: To be Assigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,314
`UNDER 35 U.S.C §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`a.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1
`b.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`i.
`Current Litigation ........................................................................ 2
`ii.
`Administrative Proceedings ........................................................ 2
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 3
`c.
`Service of Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................... 3
`d.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................... 3
`a.
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................ 4
`i.
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................................................................. 5
`1.
`“Unique Identifier” (Claims 11, 15) ................................. 6
`2.
`“Demographic Information” (Claims 11, 20) ................... 7
`3.
`“Periodically” (Claims 11 and 12) ................................... 7
`4.
`“Software” (Claims 11 and 20) ........................................ 8
`How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................. 8
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ............... 9
`iii.
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 9
`V. DETAILED CHALLENGE ............................................................................ 9
`a.
`The ’314 Patent ..................................................................................... 9
`i.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ‘314 Patent ............... 9
`ii.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’314 Patent .......... 12
`Ground 1— Logan Anticipates Claims 11,12,13,18 and 20: .............. 13
`
`ii.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`i.
`ii.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Page
`Brief Overview of Logan .......................................................... 13
`Analysis ..................................................................................... 15
`1.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 11 ........................................... 15
`a.
`“A method of provide demographically-
`targeted advertising to a computer user” .............. 15
`“providing a server that is accessible via a
`computer network, permitting a computer user
`to access said server via said computer
`network,” .............................................................. 17
`“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,” ........................................................ 17
`“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,” ............................................................... 18
`“transferring a copy of said software to the
`computer in response to a download request by
`the user,” ............................................................... 21
`“providing a unique identifier to the computer,
`wherein said identifier uniquely identifies
`information sent over said computer network
`from the computer to said server,” ....................... 21
`“associating said unique identifier with
`demographic information in a database,” ............. 24
`“selecting advertising content for transfer to
`the computer in accordance with the
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Page
`demographic information associated with said
`unique identifier;”................................................. 24
`“transferring said advertising content from said
`server to the computer for display by said
`program,” .............................................................. 25
`“periodically acquiring said unique identifier
`and said computer usage information recorded
`by said software from the computer via said
`computer network, and associating said
`computer usage information with said
`demographic information using said unique
`identifier.” ............................................................. 26
`Logan Anticipates Claim 12 of the ’314 Patent ............. 30
`2.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 13 of the ’314 Patent ............. 30
`3.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 18 of the ’314 Patent ............. 31
`4.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 20 of the ’314 Patent ............. 32
`5.
`Ground 2— Logan in view of Robinson Renders Claims 15
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 33
`i.
`Brief Overview of Robinson ..................................................... 33
`ii.
`Analysis ..................................................................................... 34
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 5
`
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 5
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................... 5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 36
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123 ........................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 36
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 1001 — U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 to Hoyle
`
`Exhibit 1002 — U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 to Logan
`
`Exhibit 1003 — U.S. Patent No. 5,918,014 to Robinson
`
`Exhibit 1004 — Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`Exhibit 1005 — Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314
`
`Exhibit 1006 — Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010
`
`Exhibit 1007 — Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1008 — U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 to Filepp
`
`Exhibit 1009 — Stephen Gray Curriculum Vitae
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On behalf of Match.com LLC and People Media, Inc. (“Petitioners”) and in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123,
`
`inter partes review is respectfully requested for claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (“the ’314 Patent”) (PM - 1001 “Ex. 1001”) based on
`
`identical grounds as the pending IPR proceeding, IPR2014-00038.
`
`For the exact same reasons previously considered by the Board, on the exact
`
`same schedule, Petitioners respectfully seek to join IPR2014-00038. In this
`
`petition, Petitioners assert verbatim only the arguments that the Board has already
`
`instituted in IPR2014-00038.
`
`This petition does not add or alter any arguments that have already been
`
`considered by the Board, and this petition does not seek to expand the grounds of
`
`invalidity that the Boards has already found support institution of an IPR
`
`proceeding. Because this petition is filed within 30 days of the institution of
`
`IPR2013-00038, and because this petition is accompanied by a motion for joinder
`
`to the IPR, this petition is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`a.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Match.com LLC and People Media, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest for
`
`this Petition.
`
`b.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Current Litigation
`
`i.
`The ’314 Patent is presently the subject of litigation in the following cases
`
`which may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding: B.E. Technology,
`
`LLC v. Google Inc., WD. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02830; B.E. Technology, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02829; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02831; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., W.D.
`
`Ten., No 2:12-cv-02783; B.E. Technology, LLC v. People Media, Inc., W.D. Ten.,
`
`No 2:12-cv-02833; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Match.com LLC, W.D. Ten., No 2:12-
`
`cv-02834; B.E. Technology, LLC v Pandora Media, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-
`
`02782; B.E. Technology, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02772;
`
`B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02769; and B.E.
`
`Technology, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02781.
`
`ii.
`Administrative Proceedings
`The ’314 Patent is presently the subject of four instituted inter partes
`
`reviews: (1) Facebook v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-00053); (2)
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-00039); (3)
`
`Facebook v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-00052); and (4) Google
`
`Inc. v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-00038). For the reasons
`
`expressed in the concurrently filed Motion for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. 315(c), 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Petitioners seek joinder with IPR2014-00038.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`c.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Sanjay Murthy (Reg. No. 45,976)
`sanjay.murthy@klgates.com
`
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Telephone: (312) 807-4416
`Fax: (312) 827-8138
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Kacy Dicke (Reg. No. 67,392)
`kacy.dicke@klgates.com
`
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Telephone: (312) 807-4312
`Fax: (312) 345-9961
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), powers of attorney accompany this
`
`Petition.
`
`Service of Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`d.
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the mailing
`
`address of lead and backup counsel designated above. Petitioners also consent to
`
`electronic service by email at the above listed e-mail addresses of Lead and
`
`Backup Counsel.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Petitioners certify that (1) the ’314 Patent is available for inter partes review;
`
`and (2) Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`of Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 Patent on the grounds identified in this
`
`Petition. In particular, as this Petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), the one year time limitation prescribed by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 (b) does not apply. See 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b) (“The time limitation
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`
`subsection (c).”); see also Paper No. 15, IPR2013-00109 (“the one-year time bar
`
`does not apply to a request for joinder.”).
`
`In addition, the required fees are submitted herewith. The Office is
`
`authorized to charge any fee deficiency, or credit overpayment, to Deposit Account
`
`No. 02-1818. Petitioners are currently filing an Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(e)).
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`a.
`The precise relief requested by Petitioners is that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and
`
`20 of the ’314 Patent be cancelled in view of the following prior art references:
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,721,827 to
`Logan et al. (“Logan”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,918,014 to
`Robinson (“Robinson”)
`
`
`Filing/Priority
`Date
`Oct. 2, 1996
`
`Date of Issuance
`
`Feb. 24, 1998
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 1002
`
`Dec. 26, 1996
`
`Jun. 29, 1999
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`The ’314 Patent is a divisional application of application No. 09/118,351,
`
`filed on July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. The ’314 Patent was filed
`
`October 30, 2000, and was issued on September 30, 2003.
`
`Accordingly, Logan qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
`
`and/or (e); Robinson qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.SC. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`None of the above references were cited during the prosecution of the ‘314
`
`Patent. In the instant inter partes review, Petitioners apply the above references
`
`and asserts the following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claims
`11, 12, 13, 18,
`20
`15
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’314 Patent
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Logan.
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Logan in view
`of Robinson.
`
`i.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984); In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004). Under that standard, “[w]ords in a claim are to be given their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning unless the inventor chose to be his own lexicographer in the
`
`specification.” See In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`In the ’314 Patent, applicants provided explicit definitions for 15 terms,
`
`including several terms used in claims 11-13, 15, 18 and 20 of the ’314 patent,
`
`such as “computer,” “server,” “computer usage information,” “program,” and
`
`“information resource.” See Ex. 1001, col. 3:33-4:15. Petitioners submit that the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of the limitations of claims 11-13, 15, 18 and 20
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`must encompass these definitions, and therefore submits that those definitions
`
`should apply to this proceeding. Of particular relevance to this petition is
`
`“computer usage information,” which the Patent defines as “data concerning a
`
`person’s use of a computer, including such things as what programs they run, what
`
`information resources they access, what time of day or days of the week they use
`
`the computer, and so forth.” Ex. 1001, col. 3:37-41; see also Declaration of
`
`Stephen Gray (Ex. 1004, IN 88-89).
`
`Petitioners also submit the following additional proposed constructions for
`
`terms not explicitly defined in the ’314 Patent:
`
`1.
`The specification describes that the server “assigns a unique ID to the user
`
`“Unique Identifier” (Claims 11, 15)
`
`and then stores that ID along with the received demographic data....” See Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 17:13-14 (emphasis added). The specification then states: “The user ID that is
`
`stored along with the demographic data is used to anonymously identify the user
`
`for the purpose of demographically targeting advertising to that user.” Id. at col.
`
`17:29-31 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 18:21-24. Since the unique
`
`identifier is described as specific to the user, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`of “unique identifier” in view of the specification is “information that uniquely
`
`identifies a user.” 1 See Ex. 1001, col. 17:29-38; see also Ex. 1004, ¶ 91.
`
`2.
`The specification provides examples of demographic information, including
`
`“Demographic Information” (Claims 11, 20)
`
`time zone, city, state, etc. See Ex. 1001 at col. 3:8-10; col. 17:3-7. The
`
`specification also describes prior art as using demographics to target ads, including
`
`age and gender. Id. at col. 3, 11.23-26; Ex. 1008 at col. 81:15-22. All are
`
`examples of characteristic information of a user, but none specifically identify the
`
`user. Petitioners thus submit that the broadest reasonable construction of the term
`
`“demographic information” should be “collected characteristic information about a
`
`user that does not identify the user.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 2:40-48; col. 3:9-11;
`
`col. 17:29-38; see also Ex. 1004, ¶ 92.
`
`3.
`Since the plain meaning of periodic can include regular intervals and/or
`
`“Periodically” (Claims 11 and 12)
`
`irregular intervals (see Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995), Ex. 1007),
`
`
`1 With all terms addressed herein, Petitioners note that a proper claim construction
`
`in litigation, including reference to the file history of the patent, may be different
`
`than the broadest reasonable construction proposed herein.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioners submit the broadest reasonable construction of this term should be “at
`
`regular or irregular time intervals.”2 See Ex. 1004, IN 93-94.
`
`4.
`The term “software,” which appears in claims 11 and 20, is not explicitly
`
`“Software” (Claims 11 and 20)
`
`defined in the specification. Instead, “software application” is defined as “a
`
`program and associated libraries and other files.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:12-13. The
`
`broader term “software” is understood in ordinary usage to include one or more
`
`programs. See, e.g., Ex. 1007; Ex. 1004, IN 95-96. Hence, the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “software” is “one or more computer programs and
`
`associated libraries and other files,” and would not be limited to a single program.3
`
`See, e.g., col. 11:62 — col. 12, 1.2; col. 12:7-11, see also Ex. 1004, IN 95-96.
`
`ii. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, including the
`
`
`2 Petitioners note that in IPR2014-00038, the Board determined that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “periodically” is “recurring from time to time, at regular
`
`or irregular time intervals.” See Paper No. 9, IPR2014-00038, at 10.
`
`3 A proper litigation construction may be different, when the disclosure of the
`
`specification and file history is considered.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications, is provided below.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`iii.
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence and its relevance, including
`
`an identification of specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`below. The technical information and grounds for rejection explained in detail in
`
`the petition are further supported by the Declaration of Stephen Gray attached as
`
`Ex. 1004.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the field of the ’314 Patent in 1998 would have
`
`had good knowledge of computer networking, networking architecture, and online
`
`advertising. This person would also be familiar with client-server systems and
`
`information delivery systems. This person would have gained this knowledge
`
`through an undergraduate degree in electrical/computer engineering, computer
`
`science (or equivalent degree), or through two or more years of work experience in
`
`the relevant field, or through a combination thereof. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶22-23.
`
`V. DETAILED CHALLENGE
`a.
`The ’314 Patent
`i.
`The ’314 Patent generally describes a user interface that provides
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ‘314 Patent
`
`advertisements to a user. The disclosed system includes a user’s computer 18
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`connected to an advertising and data management (ADM) server 22 through the
`
`Internet 20. See Ex. 1001 at FIG. 1, shown below:
`
`
`
`The ’314 Patent discloses that a client software application 10 is initially
`
`stored at the ADM server 22. Id. at col. 7:24-28. After a request of the application
`
`by a user, the client software application 10 is downloaded and stored on the user’s
`
`computer 18. See id. The client software application 10 includes a graphical user
`
`interface (GUI) module 12 having “programming necessary to provide a user
`
`interface to the computer’s software applications and operating system[.]” Id. at
`
`col. 7:8-11. The GUI module 12 generates the application window 24 on the
`
`user’s computer monitor 26 which includes a banner region 28 for advertisements
`
`containing banner storage 30. See id. at col. 7:30-39; FIG. 1.
`
`In addition to the GUI module 12, the client software application 10 also
`
`includes an ADM module 14 that “provides the basic management of the display
`
`and refreshing of advertising as well as the acquisition and reporting of computer
`
`usage information to an advertising and data management (ADM) server 22 via the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Internet 20.” Id. at col. 7:11-15. The client software application 10 periodically
`
`reports computer usage information to the ADM server and periodically retrieves
`
`additional advertising content from the ADM server. Id. at col. 7:40-49.
`
`The ADM server 22 is located away from the user’s computer and includes
`
`an ad database 44 and a user/demographics database 46. See FIG. 3, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`The ad database 44 stores banner advertising which the database provides to
`
`clients 40 both initially during the installation of application 10 and periodically
`
`thereafter. See id. at col. 8:39-43. The user/demographics database 46 includes
`
`information about the user and is “used in targeting the advertising downloaded to
`
`the individual client computers 40.” Id. at col. 8:55-57.
`
`When a user requests access to the client application software, the user
`
`provides demographic information such as city, state or area code. Id. at col. 16:60
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`— col. 17:6. The user is then assigned a unique identifier that identifies the user
`
`and is stored along with the user’s demographic information. Id. at col. 17:10-15.
`
`The software is then downloaded to the user’s computer, pre-loaded with
`
`advertisements targeted to the user’s demographic information. Id. at col. 17:17-
`
`23. The patent discloses that the user’s unique identifier can be included in a
`
`“cookie” that the server places on the user’s computer and that is sent whenever
`
`the computer transmits computer usage information, such that the identifier is used
`
`to associate the user with the computer usage information and the demographic
`
`information. Id. at col. 17:34-38.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’314 Patent
`
`ii.
`The ’314 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/699,705, filed
`
`October 30, 2000, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/118,351,
`
`filed on July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`Prior to any substantive examination in the parent application (09/118,351),
`
`the Examiner issued a Requirement for Restriction/Election of the claims into three
`
`groups. See Ex. 1006.2 at p. 30. Group I, which included claims 1-10, 21-25, and
`
`37-43, were elected without traverse by Applicants. See Ex. 1006.1 at pp. 27, 30.
`
`After amending the claims following a Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance. See id. at p. 145. Parent application no. 09/118,351
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`On October 30, 2000, Applicants filed divisional application no. 09/699,705
`
`(issued as the ’314 Patent) including claims 1-22. See Ex. 1005 at pp. 31, 69-73.
`
`Applicants did not include an IDS for the divisional application nor did they
`
`resubmit a listing of the IDS from the parent application. See M.P.E.P. § 609.02.
`
`Claims 1-10 of the divisional application (issued as the ’314 Patent)
`
`correspond to non-elected Group II, claims 11-20 of the restriction requirement in
`
`the parent application no. 09/118,351. Claims 11-22 of the divisional (issued as
`
`the ‘314 Patent) correspond to non-elected Group III, claims 26-36 of the
`
`restriction requirement. Compare Ex. 1005 at pp. 69-73 with Ex. 1006.2 at 167-22.
`
`On May 5, 2003, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance that indicated
`
`claims 1-22 were allowed. See Ex. 1005 at p. 102. In the Notice of Allowance, the
`
`Examiner identified what he described as the “closest prior art” references that
`
`disclosed “a conventional Internet advertising system [including] a database, a
`
`controller, and an ad server operating as part of a web server and method with
`
`frequency of advertisement control.” See Ex. 1006.1 at pp. 99-100. The ’314
`
`Patent issued on September 30, 2003. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`b. Ground 1— Logan Anticipates Claims 11,12,13,18 and 20:
`i.
`Brief Overview of Logan
`Logan discloses an electronic information distribution system that
`
`selectively distributes personalized programming and advertising to subscribers
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`based on user demographics and computer usage information. See Ex. 1002, col.
`
`1: 7-10; col. 5:31-36; col. 25:4-25. The principal object of Logan’s information
`
`distribution system is to “deliver personalized information tailored to the personal
`
`interests and preferences of individual subscribers.” Id. at col. 1:34-35.
`
`More specifically, Logan discloses a server including a “library consisting of
`
`a large number of diverse programs, and which incorporates mechanisms for
`
`selectively delivering a subset of those programs to a given subscriber[.]” Id. at
`
`col. 1:42-45. The system includes a subscriber/player subsystem that is located
`
`remotely and connects to the library via the Internet. Id. at col. 1:49-52.
`
`The server containing the library accepts from the remote subscriber
`
`“indications of the subscriber’s general interests, characteristics and preferences
`
`and this subscriber characterization data is periodically matched against the
`
`characteristics of each stored program segments[.]” Id. at col. 2:1-4 (emphasis
`
`added). The server compares, among other things, the target demographic
`
`characteristics of an advertisement with the characteristics of the user, and weights
`
`the advertisements accordingly. Id. at col. 25:4-25. This ensures “that the best
`
`fitting advertisements are included in the programming and most likely to be
`
`played by the subscriber.” Id. at col. 25:23-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`ii.
`
`Analysis
`1.
`As provided by the detailed analysis and claim charts as well as the
`
`Logan Anticipates Claim 11
`
`declaration of Stephen Gray, Logan discloses all features of claim 11 of the ’314
`
`Patent. See generally Ex. 1004.
`
`a.
`
`“A method of provide demographically-
`targeted advertising to a computer user”
`
`Logan discloses each feature of the preamble. Specifically, Logan describes
`
`a host server 101 providing targeted advertising over the Internet 123 to a user at a
`
`remote desktop personal computer implementing a player 103. See id. at Fig. 1,
`
`reproduced below; see also col. 4:15-27; col. 24:1- 25; col. 25:15-25.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`The claim chart below illustrates how Logan discloses this limitation:
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 to Logan
`“Download processing, as described in more detail later,
`extracts from the library 130 data defining compressed
`program, advertising, and glue segments, and/or
`associated text program data, based on selections and
`preferences made by (or inferred for) the user as
`specified in the subscriber data and usage log
`database143.” Logan et al. 5:31-36
`
`See also Logan et al. 25:4-25.
`
`’314 Patent
`11. A method of
`providing
`demographically-
`targeted advertising
`to a computer user,
`comprising the steps
`of:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`b.
`
`“providing a server that is accessible via a
`computer network, permitting a computer user
`to access said server via said computer
`network,”
`
`Logan discloses a server 101 that is accessible via the Internet 123 by the
`
`user at player 103. See, e.g., id. at FIG. 1; col. 4:3-13.
`
`c.
`
`“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,”
`
`In Logan’s disclosed system, a subscriber “invokes programming services
`
`by first supplying personal information and initial programming preferences
`
`during an account initialization procedure.” See id. at col. 6:48-51 (emphasis
`
`added); see also FIG. 2. Logan further discloses that the personal information is
`
`gathered by “presenting the subscriber with HTML forms to complete and submit
`
`to CGC script programs which execute on the server to post subscriber supplied
`
`information into an initial user dataset.” Id. at col. 6:53-56. Such personal
`
`information includes the user’s “age, profession, sex and marital status” Id. at col.
`
`8:64 -9:11. Under the constructions proposed above, Logan’s supplied “personal
`
`information” corresponds to the claimed “demographic information” because it is
`
`collected characteristic information of the user that does not identify the user. See
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶ 104.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`d.
`
`“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,”
`
`This limitation requires providing download access to software that performs
`
`the three tasks of: i) displaying advertising; ii) recording usage; and iii)
`
`periodically requesting additional advertising. The account initialization procedure
`
`in Logan, referenced in the preceding claim limitation, discloses this limitation. In
`
`Logan’s system, a prospective subscriber sets up a new account by using a
`
`conventional web browser to establish HTTP dialog with server 101. See id. at col.
`
`8:42-46. After a subscriber has set up a new account, “utility programs and data
`
`may be downloaded from the FTP server 125 to the client/player 103.” Id. at
`
`col. 8:54-56 (emphasis added). These utility files meet the definition of “software”
`
`as construed above because they constitute one or more software applications. See
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶¶105-07.
`
`These utility programs perform functions such as “(a) program
`
`decompression, playback and navigation; (b) recording of a usage log file
`
`identifying the program and advertising segments played and the start time, ending
`
`time, volume level and playing speed for each such segment; and (c) the selection
`
`and updating of programming preferences and selections for future
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`downloading.” Id. at col. 8:57-63 (emphases added); see also id. at col. 10:11-20
`
`(describing access to the “playback utility program” and “the utility programs used
`
`to modify the subscriber’s personal dat