Thomas Engellenner
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`and
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00717
`Case No. IPR2015-00335
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,180,686
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS ......................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ‘686 PATENT .................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of The ‘686 Patent ............................................................... 2
`
`Summary Of The Claimed Subject Matter ........................................... 5
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 8
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ........................................ 9
`
`Plain And Ordinary Meaning Of “Search” ........................................ 11
`
`IV. REILLY DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 15
`
`Summary Of Reilly ............................................................................ 16
`
`Reilly’s “Push” System Is Fundamentally Different Than The
`Systems And Methods Disclosed In The ‘686 Patent ........................ 20
`
`Reilly Does Not Disclose Use Of A Search Agent, Search
`Rules, Or Search Criteria As Recited In The Challenged Claims ..... 24
`
`Information On Multiple Subjects Is Transmitted To The LAN
`Server In The LAN Server Embodiment Of Reilly ........................... 27
`
`Reilly Does Not Anticipate Claim 2 .................................................. 29
`
`V.
`
`REILLY AND TECHNOLOGY & LEARNING DO NOT RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS................................................ 31
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 31
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,180,686
`
`Page
`Summary Of Technology & Learning ................................................ 32
`
`Summary Of Petitioner’s Arguments With Respect To
`Technology & Learning ..................................................................... 33
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance On Technology & Learning Does Not
`Cure The Deficiencies Of Reilly ........................................................ 34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VI. THE PETITION IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE AND CANNOT
`SUPPORT A FINDING OF UNPATENTABILITY BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ......................................................... 35
`
`A. Neither The Petitioner Nor Its Declarant Applied A Proper
`Claim Construction To The Anticipation Or Obviousness
`Analysis .............................................................................................. 35
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Declarant Did Not Scrutinize The Language Of The
`Challenged Claims Or The Application Of Reilly Thereto ............... 39
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 42
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,180,686
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`CallCopy, Inc. v. Verint Americas, Inc., IPR2013-00486,
`Paper 11 (PTAB, Feb. 5, 2014) .......................................................................... 39
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................... 9
`
`Endo Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00656,
`Paper 12 (PTAB, Sept. 29, 2014) ......................................................................... 9
`
`Environmental Designs Ltd v. Union Oil, 713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............. 10
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ....................................................... 31
`
`In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................... 31
`
`In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ......................................................... 35
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................ 9
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................... 8
`
`Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709 (Fed.Cir.1998) ........................ 36
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................... 31, 32
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 36, 37
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2012-00026,
`Paper 17 (PTAB, Dec. 21, 2012) ........................................................................ 37
`
`MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................ 15
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........... 15
`
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l, 316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 36
`
`Scripps Clinic & Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565
`(Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Page(s)
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........ 9
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................... 32
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00152 Paper 8 (PTAB, Aug. 19, 2013) ................................................. 9
`
`ZTE Corporation v. ContenGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00139,
`Paper 15 (PTAB, July 9, 2013) ........................................................................... 37
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 1, 15, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ........................................................................................... 1, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ............................................................................................. 35, 36
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................. 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ........................................................................................ 35, 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) ............................................................................................... 38
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................. 8, 39
`
`MPEP § 2131 (9th Ed., March 2014) ...................................................................... 15
`
`MPEP § 2141 (9th Ed., March 2014) ...................................................................... 32
`
`MPEP § 2142 (9th Ed., March 2014) ...................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`Previously filed
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`Redacted Rebuttal Witness Statement of Mr. Ivan
`Zatkovich for Investigation No. 337-TA-882 at the
`United States International Trade Commission
`(“Zatkovich Rebuttal Witness Statement”)
`Proposed Discovery Requests
`
`Mobile Application Distribution Agreement
`Complaint in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00379 (E.D.
`Tex.).
`Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`1930, As Amended, & Attached Infringement Chart.
`Select Internet Web pages from en.wikipedia.org.
`Google Inc.’s Motion to Intervene in International
`Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-882
`(ITC Jul. 26, 2013).
`ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-882 Prehearing
`Conference Transcript, Aug. 6, 2013
`Transcript of Proceedings before the Hon. Lucy H.
`Koh for Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No.
`12-cv-00630 (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2014), ECF No. 1926
`(hereinafter “Apple v. Samsung Tr.”).
`Transcript of Deposition of Justin Denison (Plaintiff’s
`Exhibit No. 3001) for Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd., No. 12-cv-00630 (N.D. Ca. June 16, 2014),
`ECF No. 1920 (hereinafter “Denison Dep. Tr.”).
`Select Internet Web Pages from samsung.com
`Claim Charts Illustrating Infringement of U.S. Patent
`6,618,593 in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00379 (E.D.
`Tex.), served on August 22, 2013.
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
`
`New
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Declaration of William O. Putnam.
`
`Selected portions of the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, 4th Edition, Microsoft Press, 1999.
`
`Selected portions of PC Magazine Encyclopedia
`(http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia), accessed
`February 18, 2015.
`
`“PointCast unveils free news service,” Rose Aguilar,
`CNET News, February 13, 1996,
`http://news.cnet.com/PointCast-unveils-free-news-
`service/2100-1023_3-204658.html (accessed
`February 23, 2015).
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth,
`Ph.D., dated February 3, 2015.
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner, Black Hills Media, LLC,
`
`(“Patent Owner”) hereby submits this Response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (Paper 1, “Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,686 (the ‘686 Patent) as to
`
`the following grounds for which a trial was instituted in the Decision Institution of
`
`Inter Partes Review dated November 4, 2014 (Paper 18, “Institution Decision”):
`
`1) whether claims 1, 2, 20, 23, 29, and 30 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 5,740,549 of Reilly et al. (Ex. 1003,
`
`“Reilly”); and
`
`2) whether claims 1, 2, 20, 23, 29, and 30 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Reilly in view of a journal article by Jiri Weiss entitled
`
`“New Places to Go Online,” TECHNOLOGY & LEARNING, 14(8):109-15
`
`(May/June 1994) (Ex. 1004, “Technology & Learning”).
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`any of the claims at issue are unpatentable over Reilly alone or in combination
`
`with Technology & Learning. The asserted prior art lacks one or more material
`
`features of every claim at issue in this proceeding. As discussed in detail below,
`
`Reilly is directed to a fundamentally different method and system of information
`
`access than that which is described and claimed in the ‘686 Patent. Moreover, the
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Petition is fatally flawed as the only evidence put forth in the Petition is a generic,
`
`“qualitative” comparison by Petitioner’s proffered expert between the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘686 Patent (under an unreasonably broad claim construction and
`
`without regard to the particular recitations of the challenged claims) and the
`
`asserted prior art.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ‘686 PATENT
`The ‘686 Patent, entitled “Agent-Based On-Line Information Retrieval and
`
`Viewing System,” was filed on March 2, 1998, as U.S. Application No.
`
`09/034,773, and issued to Henry R. Williams, Jr. on August 22, 2000.
`
`Summary Of The ‘686 Patent
`
`A.
`In 1998, when the application that resulted in the ‘686 Patent was filed,
`
`“push” technology had recently been introduced. (Ex. 1001 at 1:18-20). As
`
`described in the background of the ‘686 Patent, in “push” systems “[t]he user does
`
`not need to search for or request the information.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:24-25; see also
`
`Ex. 2013 at ¶¶21-22). Rather, “a remote server generally gathers information on
`
`various topics from remote databases, packages the information into subject
`
`groupings called ‘channels’, and automatically downloads selected channels to the
`
`user’s computer.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:19-24; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶21). “The retrieved
`
`information may be automatically stored locally on the user’s computer, such that
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`the user can browse the information off-line at a time of his own choosing.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:26-28; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶21).
`
`Unlike the “push” systems described in the background of the ‘686 Patent,
`
`the inventive methods and systems of the ‘686 Patent provide access to desired
`
`information by enabling a user to “define a unique set of search rules for locating
`
`information on the particular subject area stored in one or more remote databases
`
`across the [wide area network].” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶22).
`
`That is, the ‘686 Patent describes a “pull” system that utilizes an active search for
`
`information about a single, predefined subject on remote databases on a network
`
`such as the Internet and retrieves that information from the remote sources. (See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:66-2:2 and 2:10-15 and Figure 4; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶22).
`
`In exemplary embodiments described in the ‘686 Patent, the subject-specific
`
`information retrieval and viewing system (“SIRViS”) utilizes a search agent to
`
`locate and retrieve information relating to a single predefined subject according to
`
`the user-specific set of search rules. (Exhibit 1001 at 2:66-3:2; see also Ex. 2013
`
`at ¶22). For example, each SIRViS is custom designed to retrieve and display only
`
`information relating to a particular subject area such as news, cooking, weather,
`
`and sports. (See Ex. 1001 at 3:40-43; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶23). Only information
`
`on a predefined topic that is responsive to the unique user-specific search rules is
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`retrieved, stored in a local database, and presented to the user via a user interface.
`
`(See Ex. 1001 at 6:34-38; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶23).
`
`As shown in Figure 4 of the ‘686 Patent (reproduced below), a SIRViS can
`
`include a graphical user interface 24 (“GUI”) that includes a control panel
`
`component 26 and a viewer component 24. (Ex. 1001 at 3:2-8 and 5:21-29; see
`
`also Ex. 1001 at Figures 3 and 4 and Ex. 2013 at ¶24.) The control panel
`
`component 26 is used to specify search rules, and the viewer component 24 is used
`
`to view retrieved information. (Id.)
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`The control panel component 26 uses user interface elements such as
`
`windows, dialog boxes, and other features that may be manipulated with a
`
`keyboard, mouse, or pointing device to allow a user to control the SIRViS and also
`
`to enter search criteria for a predefined subject area. (Ex. 1001 at 5:32-39; see also
`
`Ex. 2013 at ¶25). Each user can create his own unique set of search rules, which
`
`are stored within the client system 40 and used to control and direct the activity of
`
`the search agent 25. (Ex. 1001 at 5:24-30; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶25). When the
`
`search agent 25 locates information for a user, the search agent 25 accesses the
`
`search rules specific to the user, retrieves the responsive information from remote
`
`database 34, and stores the information in a local database 30 for presentation to
`
`the user via the user interface 24. (Ex. 1001 at 6:14-24, 6:34-38, and 6:53-62; see
`
`also Ex. 2013 at ¶¶22,25).
`
`Summary Of The Claimed Subject Matter
`
`B.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`1. A device for providing a plurality of local users with
`information stored remotely on a network, the device comprising:
`a rule generation unit configured to define, for each of the
`plurality of local users, a set of search rules applicable to a predefined
`subject; and
`a search agent configured to retrieve information on only the
`predefined subject from a database on the network based on each set
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`of search rules and to store the retrieved information in a local
`database.
`
`Claim 2, which depends from independent claim 1, recites that the device of
`
`claim 1 further comprises a user interface configured to enable each of the plurality
`
`of local users to access, from the local database, the information on the predefined
`
`subject associated with the corresponding set of search criteria.
`
`Independent claim 20 recites at follows:
`
`20. A method of providing a plurality of local users with
`information stored remotely on a network, the method comprising:
`for each of the plurality of local users, generating a unique set
`of search criteria relating to a single, predefined subject;
`retrieving information relating to only the predefined subject
`from a database on the network based on each set of search criteria;
`and
`
`storing the retrieved information in a local database accessible
`to the plurality of local users.
`
`Challenged claim 23 depends from independent claim 20 and recites
`
`additional limitations of the method of claim 20.
`
`Independent claim 29 recites at follows:
`
`29. A method of providing a plurality of local users with
`information stored remotely over a network, the method comprising:
`using a computer system on the network to receive a set of user
`inputs from each of the plurality local users, each set of user inputs for
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`creating a set of search rules for the corresponding local user for a
`predefined subject;
`retrieving information relating to only the predefined subject
`from a remote database on the network;
`storing the retrieved information on the predefined subject in a
`local database;
`receiving a set of user inputs from one of the local users; and
`responding to the set of user inputs by retrieving from the local
`database a portion of the information on the predefined subject, the
`portion corresponding to the set of search rules associated with said
`one of the local users, and by outputting the information to said one of
`the local users.
`
`Challenged claim 30 depends from independent claim 29 and recites
`
`additional limitations of the method of claim 30.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner proposed (and applied) explicit constructions for each of the
`
`following phrases found in the challenged claims: “rule generation unit,” “search
`
`agent,” “to store the retrieved information,” “storing the retrieved information,”
`
`“user interface,” “using the computer system to receive the set of user inputs from
`
`said one of the local users,” and “using the computer system to output the
`
`information to said one of the local users.” (Petition at pp. 4-9).
`
`The Board determined that express construction of these phrases was not
`
`required at the time of its Institution Decision. (Institution Decision at p. 7.) For
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`purposes of these proceedings, Patent Owner defers without prejudice to the
`
`Board’s initial determination to not expressly construe these claim limitations.
`
`Patent Owner reserves its right to present an explicit construction of the terms in
`
`any other proceeding before the Board or other tribunal.
`
`Though Patent Owner does not provide express constructions, the evidence
`
`submitted herewith in the form of expert testimony by William Putnam (Ex. 2013)
`
`and the contemporaneous usage of these terms about the date of invention shed
`
`light on the broadest reasonable construction applicable to this inter partes review.
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence demonstrates that Petitioner’s proposed, explicit
`
`constructions are unreasonably broad and fail to take into account the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of “search” as it relates to the variously recited terms “search
`
`rules,” “search agent,” and “search criteria” within the challenged claims.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`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. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). “Under that
`
`standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).” Endo Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00656
`
`(Paper 12 at 6, Sept. 29, 2014) (emphasis added).
`
`Indeed, “[t]here is a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning,” Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal
`
`Electronics, Inc., IPR2013-00152 (Paper 8, Aug. 19, 2013) (quoting CCS Fitness,
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), and “there are
`
`only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition
`
`and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope
`
`of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Any special
`
`definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`
`and precision.” Endo Pharmaceutical, Inc., IPR2014-00656 (Paper 12 at 6) (citing
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
`
`B. A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`Petitioner has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention “would typically have had a M.S. degree in computer science in
`
`addition to two or more years of work experience relating to the field of the
`
`provision of information and multimedia services over wide area and local area
`
`networks.” (Petition at p. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 at ¶4)).
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`For purposes of this paper, Patent Owner adopts a level of skill similar to
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition, with the sole difference being the indication of
`
`“about two years” of work experience in the field, rather than the open-ended “two
`
`or more years” suggested by Petitioner.1 (See Ex. 2013 at ¶19). Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant have assumed that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a M.S. degree in computer science and
`
`about two years of work experience relating to the field of the provision of
`
`information and multimedia services over wide area and local area networks. (Id.).
`
`Patent Owner nonetheless reserves its right to present evidence as to the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ‘686 Patent in
`
`any other proceeding before the Board or other tribunal.
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s applied definition is consistent with the “ordinary” level of skill
`
`in the art. A determination of the person having “ordinary” skill does not merely
`
`provide a floor (i.e., to exclude “laymen”), but also a ceiling so as to exclude the
`
`“geniuses” in the relevant art when applying the relevant legal standards to the
`
`challenged claims. Environmental Designs Ltd v. Union Oil, 713 F.2d 693 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1983).
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Plain And Ordinary Meaning Of “Search”
`
`C.
`As shown above, each of the challenged claims in the ‘686 Patent recites a
`
`method or system that utilizes at least one of “search rules,” “search criteria,” and
`
`a “search agent.”
`
`With regard to “search agent,” Petitioner proposed an explicit definition as
`
`“hardware and/or software capable of retrieving information and storing it.”
`
`(Petition at p. 5). This proposed construction fails to take into account the
`
`significance of the “search” portion of “search agent” to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.2 (Ex. 2013 at ¶31). Indeed, Petitioner’s overly-broad definition
`
`improperly encompasses any computer program or system capable of merely
`
`retrieving and storing information, including file transfer applications, electronic
`
`mail systems, database systems, content distribution systems, and many other
`
`distinctly different types of information storage and retrieval systems, none of
`
`which would be considered a “search” agents by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. (Ex. 2013 at ¶31). Rather, as evidenced by the following definitions provided
`
`
`2 Though Petitioner did not propose an explicit construction for “search rules” or
`
`“search criteria,” Petitioner’s failure to consider the “search” portion of “search
`
`agent” similarly effects the proper understanding of “search rules” and “search
`
`criteria” to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`by the Microsoft Computer Dictionary3 and confirmed by the declaration of
`
`William Putnam (Ex. 2013 at ¶¶29-30), the ordinary and customary meaning of a
`
`“search agent” is a computer program that acts on behalf of a user to conduct a
`
`search for (e.g., seek/locate/look for) specific information, guided by search
`
`criteria that specify the particular information to be retrieved:
`
`• search (noun) – “1. The process of seeking a particular file or specific data.
`
`A search is carried out by a program through comparison or calculation to
`
`determine whether a match to some pattern exists or whether some other
`
`criteria have been met...” (Ex. 2014, “search (n)” at p. 399, emphasis added);
`
`• search (verb) – “1. To look for the location of a file. 2. To seek specific data
`
`within a file or data structure...” (Ex. 2014, “search (v)” at p. 399, emphasis
`
`added);
`
`• search criteria – “The terms or conditions that a search engine uses to find
`
`items in a database. See also search engine.” (Ex. 2014, “search criteria” at
`
`p. 399);
`
`• search engine – “1. A program that searches for keywords in documents or
`
`in a database. 2. On the Internet, a program that searches for keywords in
`
`files and documents found on the World Wide Web, newsgroups, Gopher
`
`3 Selected portions of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th Edition, Microsoft
`
`Press, 1999) is submitted herewith as Exhibit 2014.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`menus, and FTP archives. Some search engines are used for a single Internet
`
`site, such as a dedicated search engine for a web site. Others search across
`
`many sites, using such agents as spiders to gather lists of available files and
`
`documents and store these lists in databases that users can search by
`
`keyword. Examples of the latter type of search engine are Lycos and Excite.
`
`Most search engines reside on a server. See also agent (definition 2)….”
`
`(Ex. 2014, “search engine” at p. 399); and
`
`• agent – “1. A program that performs a background task for a user and
`
`reports to the user when the task is done or some expected event has taken
`
`place. 2. A program that searches through archives or other repositories of
`
`information on a topic specified by the user. Agents of this type are used
`
`most often on the Internet and are generally dedicated to searching a single
`
`type of information repository, such as postings on Usenet groups...” (Ex.
`
`2014, “agent” at pp. 18-19);
`
`The concept of “search agent” is not described as broadly in the ‘686 Patent
`
`as explicitly proposed by the Petitioner. Rather, the ‘686 Patent’s use of the terms
`
`“search agent,” “search rules,” and “search criteria” is consistent with the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of these terms to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Ex.
`
`2013 at ¶30). For example, the ‘686 Patent provides that “search agent 25 is a
`
`search engine which separately uses each set of search rules to access information
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`on a predefined subject area in one or more remote databases 34.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:49-51, emphasis added). In addition, “[t]he agent 25 is designed to use these sets
`
`of search rules to retrieve a specific type of information from the predefined
`
`remote databases 34.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:34-39; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶28). Indeed, in
`
`describing (and distinguishing over) “push” systems in the background of the ‘686
`
`Patent, the ‘686 Patent explicitly indicates that mere retrieval (i.e., “gathering”)
`
`and storage (i.e., “download”) of information does not constitute a “search”:
`
`Another, more recently developed information access technology is
`commonly referred to as “push” technology. With push technology, a
`remote server generally gathers information on various topics from
`remote databases, packages the information into subject groupings
`called “channels”, and automatically downloads selected channels to
`the user’s computer. The user does not need to search for or request
`the information. The retrieved information may be automatically
`stored locally on the user's computer, such that the user can browse
`the information off-line at a time of his own choosing.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:18-25, emphasis added; see also Ex. 2013 at ¶39).
`
`Because Petitioner’s proposed construction is not consistent with usage of
`
`the term in the ‘686 Patent or the ordinary and customary meaning of the term as it
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, Petitioner’s proposed (and applied) construction is unreasonably broad.
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`IV. REILLY DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`The Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`Reilly anticipates the challenged claims. The patentability of the challenged
`
`claims over Reilly is amply supported by the declaration testimony of William
`
`Putnam, an expert in the relevant art who is well qualified to testify as to the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and Reilly from the vantage point of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ‘686 Patent.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`To anticipate, “[t]here must be no difference between the claimed invention
`
`and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of
`
`the invention.” Scripps Clinic & Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565,
`
`1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[T]he reference must disclose each and every element of
`
`the claim with sufficient clarity to prove its existence in the prior art.” Motorola,
`
`Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP
`
`§ 2131 (9th Ed., March 2014). Moreover, “the prior art reference—in order to
`
`anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim
`
`within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements
`
`arranged as in the claim.” MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Summary Of Reilly
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent 5,740,549 issued to James Reilly and Gregory Hassett on April
`
`17, 1998, and resulted from an application filed on June 12, 1995.
`
`Reilly is directed to an information system that utilizes “push” technology
`
`for distributing news and advertising to subscribers, according to their interests,
`