`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: July 21, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 8–10, 13, 15, and 17–20 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,321,229 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’229
`
`Patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311. Hewlett-Packard Company (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Waiver of Preliminary Response. Paper 12. Under 35
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 3):
`
`References
`
`Claims challenged
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,199,098 B1 (“Jones”)
`(Ex. 1003) and Fox1
`
`8–10 and 13
`
`Jones, Fox, and U.S. Patent No. 6,151,630
`(“Williams”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`18–20
`
`Jones, Fox, and Forta2
`
`15 and 17
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that, on this record,
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner identifies, as a related proceeding, a lawsuit in the United
`
`States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. ServiceNow, Inc., Case Number 14-CV-
`
`00570. Pet. 1.
`
`C. The ’229 Patent
`
`The ’229 Patent pertains to a computer implemented system using an
`
`information model to organize an information repository into a hierarchy of
`
`1 DAVID FOX & TROY DOWNING, WEB PUBLISHER’S CONSTRUCTION KIT WITH
`HTML 3.2 (1996) (“Fox”) (Ex. 1004).
`2 BEN FORTA ET AL., THE COLD FUSION WEB DATABASE CONSTRUCTION KIT
`(1997) (“Forta”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`information. Ex. 1001, 1:7–11. The hierarchy comprises derived containers
`
`that are generated in conformance with an information model comprising a
`
`hierarchy of container definition nodes. Id. at 2:61–63.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 8–10, 13, 15, and 17–20 of the ’229
`
`Patent. Pet. 1. Claims 8, 17, and 18 are independent. Ex. 1001, 16:16–33,
`
`17:15–18:22. Each of claims 9, 10, 13, and 15 depends directly from claim
`
`8. Id. at 16:34–41, 16:59–67, 17:5–10. Each of claims 19 and 20 depends
`
`directly from claim 18. Id. at 18:23–29. Independent claim 8 is illustrative
`
`and is reproduced below.
`
`information repository,
`
`Apparatus for accessing an
`8.
`comprising:
`a.
`a number of computer readable media; and
`b.
`computer readable program code stored on said
`number of computer readable media, said computer
`readable program code comprising:
`i.
`code for creating a hierarchy of derived containers,
`wherein a given derived container corresponds to:
`(1)
`a container definition node of an information
`model, said
`information model comprising a
`hierarchy of container definition nodes; and
`(2)
`a category of information stored in said
`information repository;
`ii.
`code for displaying given ones of said derived
`containers to a computer user; and
`iii.
`code for determining if a given one of said
`displayed derived containers has been selected by a
`computer user, and upon selection of said given one
`of said displayed derived containers, displaying
`contents of said given one of said displayed derived
`containers.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`1. Legal Standard
`
`As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims for
`
`purposes of this decision. 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); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC., No. 2014-
`
`1301, 2015 WL 4097949, at *5–*8 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the [America Invents Act (Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`
`(2011)) (‘AIA’)],” and “the standard was properly adopted by [United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’)] regulation.”). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, 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).
`
`2. Proposed Constructions
`
`Petitioner identifies the following claim terms for construction. Pet. 12–19.
`
`
`
`Claim Term in the ’229
`Patent
`“information repository”
`“information model”
`
`“container definition node”
`
`“derived container”
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“[A] collection of information.” Id. at 12.
`“[I]nformation that defines a hierarchical
`organization for an information repository.”
`Id. at 13.
`“Information comprising attributes for
`creating a derived container.” Id. at 14.
`“[I]nformation derived at least in part from a
`container definition node.” Id. at 17.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`Claim Term in the ’229
`Patent
`“selection criteria attribute”
`
`“pointer”
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“[A]n attribute that determines information
`that can be extracted at a derived container.”
`Id.
`“[A] piece of information that points to or
`references other information.” Id. at 18.
`
`Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions in
`
`its Waiver of Preliminary Response.
`
`On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that
`
`Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions for the terms “information
`
`repository,” “information model,” “selection criteria attribute,” and
`
`“pointer” are the broadest reasonable interpretations of these terms. For
`
`example, the ’229 Patent Specification describes an “information repository”
`
`as “hold[ing] a wealth and variety of information that can be accessed.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:31–32. Regarding the term “information model,” the ’229
`
`Patent Specification explains that “an information model can be created to
`
`define a hierarchy of information (also referred to as a hierarchy) for one or
`
`more information repositories to provide meaningful and easy access to
`
`information in the information repositories.” Id. at 4:23–26. Regarding the
`
`term “selection criteria attribute,” the ’229 Patent Specification describes
`
`that a “selection criteria attribute” is used to “actually extract [records] from
`
`a database.” Id. at 7:15–16.
`
`Regarding the terms “container definition node” and “derived
`
`container,” we agree with Petitioner to the extent that the ’229 Patent
`
`Specification describes a “container definition node” as comprising
`
`attributes (id. at 10:24–26) and indicates that derived containers are
`
`generated in conformance with an information model comprising a hierarchy
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`of container definition nodes (id. at 4:4–7). However, for the reasons set
`
`forth below, we are not persuaded that the term “container” is simply
`
`information (Pet. 14–17) and, instead, construe the term “container” for the
`
`purposes of this decision.
`
`3. “container definition node” and “derived container”
`
`We start by determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“container.” The Specification does not provide a definition of “container.”
`
`A technical dictionary sets forth a plain and ordinary meaning of “container”
`
`as follows: “[A]n element in the directory tree that can contain other
`
`containers, leaf objects or both. The container commonly corresponds to a
`
`meaningful level of organization or administration, while the leaf
`
`corresponds to a specific network element.” DICTIONARY OF
`
`COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY: TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`(John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ed., 1998), available at
`
`http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileycommtech/container/0
`
`(Ex. 3001). The dictionary definition of “container” is useful in ascertaining
`
`the way in which one of ordinary skill in the art would use this claim term.
`
`Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856–57 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014).
`
`The technical dictionary definition is consistent with the ’229 Patent
`
`Specification, which describes “derived containers” as follows: “derived
`
`containers are objects that can be selected to traverse a hierarchy (or to
`
`traverse a derived hierarchy).” Ex. 1001, 7:37–39. Additionally, the ’229
`
`Patent Specification describes “container definition node” as follows:
`
`“container definition node 900 is an object that comprises attributes related
`
`to creating a hierarchy of information.” Id. at 10:24–26. The ’229 Patent
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`Specification teaches that hierarchies may be “tree structures.” Id. at 8:8–
`
`13. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate exemplary hierarchies (id. at 3:46–49)
`
`comprising parent nodes and child nodes (id. at 10:62–11:5).
`
`As indicated above, Petitioner’s constructions of the terms “container
`
`definition node” and “derived container” are consistent with the ’229 Patent
`
`Specification, except that Petitioner’s construction of “container” is too
`
`broad. Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we
`
`determine the following broadest reasonable interpretations: (1) “container
`
`definition node” means “a container comprising attributes for creating a
`
`derived container” and (2) “derived container” means “a container derived at
`
`least in part from a container definition node.” We further note that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “container” within each of
`
`these constructions is “an element in the directory tree that can contain other
`
`containers, leaf objects, or both.”
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Overview
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`
`that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;3 and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 8–10 and 13 over Jones and Fox
`
`Petitioner contends that each of claims 8–10 and 13 of the ’229 Patent
`
`is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Jones and Fox. Pet. 19–
`
`45.
`
`1. Jones
`
`Jones teaches a method and apparatus for navigating through
`
`electronically stored information using an expandable hierarchical index or
`
`table of contents (“TOC”) in a hypertextual, client-server network
`
`environment such as the World Wide Web (“Web”). Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`
`Jones teaches that a computer may access a HyperText Mark-up Language
`
`(“HTML”) document located elsewhere on the Web by formulating a
`
`request encoded in Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”) and transmitting
`
`the request across the network. Id. at 1:50–58. At the heart of the HTTP
`
`request is a Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”), which is an address
`
`identifying the computer which hosts the document. Id. at 1:59–62. The
`
`host computer parses the HTTP request and responds by transmitting a copy
`
`of the document to the requesting computer. Id. at 1:63–66.
`
`Jones teaches displaying TOC 100 on an end-user computer screen
`
`that has been used to access a Web site in accordance with the method and
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s declarant proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in
`the art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 10; see id. ¶ 11. Patent Owner does not challenge
`Petitioner’s declarant’s proposed definition and does not propose an
`alternative. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Decision, we
`adopt Petitioner’s definition.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`apparatus taught in Jones. Id. at 4:37–50. TOC 100 is for an on-line
`
`Customer Support Library. Id. at 4:50–52. TOC 100 is expandable at the
`
`end-user’s request. Id. at 4:53–54. A display state of TOC 100 specifies
`
`which entries or nodes within the hierarchy of TOC 100 are open and reveal
`
`their children, and which nodes are closed and conceal their children. Id. at
`
`5:2–5. Jones also teaches structural definition file 190, which is used to
`
`represent a hierarchical TOC. Id. at 6:54–56.
`
`2. Fox
`
`Fox teaches a Web Publisher how to publish HTML pages on the
`
`Web. Ex. 1004. Further, Fox teaches design fundamentals using HTML (id.
`
`at 316) such as representing special and enhanced characters (id. at 317–
`
`320), including section headings (id. at 322–24), formatting paragraphs and
`
`line breaks (id. at 324–27), and formatting the style and font of text (id. at
`
`327–37). Fox also teaches creating a table of contents. Id. at 361–63.
`
`3. Claim 8
`
`Petitioner contends (Pet. 19–38) that Jones teaches all of the
`
`limitations of claim 8, except the recitation that a derived container
`
`corresponds to a category of information stored in the information repository
`
`(Ex. 1001, 16:22–27). For this recitation, Petitioner relies on the combined
`
`teachings of Jones and Fox. Pet. 30–35.
`
`a. Analysis of Petitioner’s Contentions Regarding Jones
`
`Regarding the preamble of claim 8, which recites “accessing an
`
`information repository” (Ex. 1001, 16:16–17), Petitioner contends that the
`
`collection of Web pages taught in Jones corresponds to the “information
`
`repository” recited in claim 8. Pet. 21–23 (citing Ex.1003, 4:22–34, 4:50–
`
`52). With respect to “accessing,” Petitioner contends that Jones teaches
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`“creating a computer-based table of contents or ‘TOC’” for accessing the
`
`information repository. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:22–34).
`
`At this stage in the proceeding, we are persuaded sufficiently by
`
`Petitioner’s analysis regarding the preamble. As Petitioner notes (id. at 20),
`
`Jones is directed is to providing a hierarchical index or TOC in a
`
`hypertextual environment, such as the Web. Ex. 1003, Abstract. As
`
`Petitioner also notes (Pet. 22–23), Jones teaches generating a TOC for on-
`
`line documents, such as TOC 100 for an on-line Customer Support Library.
`
`Ex. 1003, 4:50–52.
`
`We turn to Petitioner’s analysis (Pet. 21–35) of the following
`
`recitations of claim 8: (1) “[program] code,” (2) “for creating a hierarchy of
`
`derived containers,” (3) “wherein a given derived container corresponds to
`
`[ ] a container definition node of an information model,” and (4) “said
`
`information model comprising a hierarchy of container definition nodes”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 16:19–25). Starting first with the recitation in claim 8 of
`
`“program code” (Ex. 1001, 16:21), Petitioner contends that Jones teaches
`
`script program 180, which corresponds to “program code” that is recited in
`
`claim 8 because it generates a hierarchical TOC display using structure
`
`definition file 190. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:51–55, 6:10–12, 6:16–17).
`
`On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that script program 180 of
`
`Jones teaches the claimed “program code.”
`
`We next consider the second recitation noted above, requiring that the
`
`program code “creat[e] a hierarchy of derived containers” (Ex. 1001, 16:22).
`
`Petitioner contends that generation of a Web page by script program 180 of
`
`Jones teaches this recitation. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:51–55, 6:10–12,
`
`6:16–17). Jones teaches “script program 180 dynamically generates HTML
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`Web page 145 specifying a hierarchical TOC display” (Ex. 1003, 5:52–54).
`
`As to whether the hierarchical TOC of Jones teaches “derived containers” as
`
`recited in claim 8 (Ex. 1001, 16:22), Jones indicates that the TOC is derived
`
`from structural definition file 190 (Ex. 1003, 6:54–56, 7:28–54) and the
`
`TOC comprises entries (id. at 4:54–56). As to whether the entries of Jones
`
`teach “containers” recited in claim 8, as discussed above, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “container” is an element in a directory
`
`tree that can contain other containers, leaf objects, or both. Jones teaches
`
`that the entries of the TOC may contain a “level of hierarchy directly below”
`
`that entry i.e., “the hierarchical ‘children’” of the entry (id. at 4:63–67).
`
`Additionally, according to Jones, an entry in the TOC includes an “internally
`
`assigned” hypertext link (id. at 4:57–58) that will be processed by an end-
`
`user’s browser in accordance with the HTTP protocol (id. at 4:56–63).
`
`HTTP requests, for example, encode information. Id. at 7:59.
`
`Regarding the third recitation noted above, i.e., “wherein a given
`
`derived container corresponds to [ ] a container definition node of an
`
`information model” (Ex. 1001, 16:22–24), Petitioner provides a side-by-side
`
`illustration of structure definition file 190 and the displayed TOC in Figure
`
`1 E to show one-to-one correspondence, which is reproduced below. Pet. 29
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 7:31, 7:39–54, Fig. 1E).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`
`
`The example above illustrates a table in which the left side shows structure
`
`definition file 190, as taught by Jones (Ex. 1003, 7:31, 7:39–54), and the
`
`right side shows a displayed TOC of Jones (id. at Fig. 1E). Jones indicates
`
`that Petitioner accurately portrays Jones teachings.
`
`Regarding the fourth recitation noted above, i.e., “said information
`
`model comprising a hierarchy of container definition nodes” (Ex. 1001,
`
`16:24–25), Petitioner contends that structure definition file 190 corresponds
`
`to the “information model” recited in claim 8. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`6:54–7:1, 7:10–16, 7:28–54). Jones teaches “structure definition file 190
`
`includes the following fields for each node of the TOC hierarchy:
`
`LEVEL|NAME|LABEL| (optional) URL.” Ex.1003, 6:57–60. Again, we
`
`refer to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “container,” which
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`is an element in a directory tree that can contain other containers, leaf
`
`objects or both. Jones teaches “[t]he NAME field is [ ] used to encode the
`
`hierarchical relationship between nodes” (id. at 6:54–66) and the URL field
`
`is appropriate for “leaf nodes” (id. at 7:3–4).
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded sufficiently by
`
`Petitioner’s analysis. Accordingly, on the present record, Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that Jones teaches each of the limitations recited in claim
`
`8 noted above, i.e., (1) “[program] code,” (2) “for creating a hierarchy of
`
`derived containers,” (3) “wherein a given derived container corresponds to
`
`[ ] a container definition node of an information model,” and (4) “said
`
`information model comprising a hierarchy of container definition nodes”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 16:19–25).
`
`Claim 8 recites two additional limitations: “code for displaying given
`
`ones of said derived containers to a computer user” and “code for
`
`determining if a given one of said displayed derived containers has been
`
`selected by a computer user, and upon selection of said given one of said
`
`displayed derived containers, displaying contents of said given one of said
`
`displayed derived containers” (Ex. 1001, 16:28–34). Regarding the
`
`limitation in claim 8 that given ones of the derived containers are displayed
`
`(Ex. 1001, 16:28–29), consistent with Petitioner’s analysis (Pet. 35–36)
`
`Jones teaches “FIG. 1E illustrates the display of an expandable TOC” (Ex.
`
`1003, 4:8–9). Regarding the limitation recited in claim 8 that, upon
`
`selection by a computer user, contents of the selected derived container are
`
`displayed (Ex. 1001, 16:30–34), consistent with Petitioner’s contentions
`
`(Pet. 36–37), Jones teaches “if the end-user uses a cursor control device or
`
`the like to ‘select’ ‘Hardware’ entry 120, then . . . Hardware entry 120 has
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`now been ‘opened’ in the display, revealing the level of hierarchy directly
`
`below Hardware entry 120. . . i.e., the hierarchical ‘children’ 125” (Ex.
`
`1003, 4:54–67).
`
`Accordingly, on the present record Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`
`that Jones teaches each of the additional limitations recited in claim 8 noted
`
`above, i.e., “code for displaying given ones of said derived containers to a
`
`computer user” and “code for determining if a given one of said displayed
`
`derived containers has been selected by a computer user, and upon selection
`
`of said given one of said displayed derived containers, displaying contents of
`
`said given one of said displayed derived containers” (Ex. 1001, 16:28–34).
`
`b. Analysis of Petitioner’s Contentions Regarding Fox
`
`Petitioner relies on the combined teachings of Jones and Fox for the
`
`limitation recited in claim 8 that a derived container also corresponds to “a
`
`category of information stored in said information repository” (Ex. 1001,
`
`16:22–27). Pet. 30–35. Petitioner points to the entry of “White Papers”
`
`relating to the VRML standard in Jones and contends that clicking on the
`
`string “|/Technology/whitepapers.html#VRML” would cause the browser to
`
`open the “whitepapers.html” document and display the “VRML” subsection.
`
`Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:48–49). Petitioner contends that Fox teaches that
`
`“the NAME is a standard feature of HTML and URLs” and “the NAME
`
`attribute reflects information stored in the actual HTML document to which
`
`the URL refers.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1004, 362–63).
`
`Jones teaches a structure definition file having a “NAME field” for
`
`each node of the TOC hierarchy. Ex. 1003, 6:57–60. Additionally, Jones
`
`teaches that the structure definition file for generating TOC displays
`
`illustrated in Figures 1(A) through 1(E) includes the following string:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`“4|SWSTDVRPAP|“White Papers”|/Technology/whitepapers.html#VRML.”
`
`Id. at 7:29–50.
`
`Fox teaches a “hypertable of contents” entitled “Major World
`
`Religions,” which includes a list of religions that are marked as links. Ex.
`
`1004, 362. According to an example in Fox, “[w]hen someone clicks on the
`
`word Judaism in your table of contents they’ll be warped to the appropriate
`
`section of your document.” Id. Additionally, Fox teaches “[i]f the NAME
`
`attribute is also included [ ] you can begin reading a document from any
`
`particular point.” Id. at 362–63.
`
`Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Jones and Fox teaches that a derived container also
`
`corresponds to “a category of information stored in said information
`
`repository,” as recited in claim 8 (Ex. 1001, 16:22–27).
`
`c. Whether Petitioner has Satisfied the Requirements for
`Combining the Teachings of Jones and Fox
`
`Petitioner contends “Fox provides an express motivation” to use the
`
`NAME attribute by stating that it is “very useful.” Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 361–63). According to Petitioner “this ‘very useful’ feature would
`
`allow Jones to provide a more granular Table of Contents by providing
`
`multiple URLs for a given document, each pointing to a different section or
`
`category within the document.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 361–62). In
`
`reliance on Mr. Klausner, Petitioner contends, therefore, that “it would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt these teachings of
`
`Fox to Jones.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82, 83). At this time,
`
`Petitioner’s analysis is not rebutted by Patent Owner.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as
`
`to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the method and
`
`apparatus for providing a hierarchical index in a hypertextual, client-server
`
`environment (Ex. 1003, Title [54]) as taught in Jones, with the teachings of
`
`Fox relating to a useful feature for publishing a hypertable of contents on the
`
`Internet (Ex. 1004, 361–63). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`d. Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that, on this record, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of independent claim 8.
`
`4. Dependent Claims 9, 10, and 13
`
`Each of claims 9, 10, and 13 depend directly from claim 8. Each of
`
`claims 9 and 10 recites further limitations on the contents of derived
`
`containers (Ex. 1001, 16:34–41). In particular, claim 9 recites “wherein the
`
`contents of some derived containers comprise child derived containers, and
`
`the contents of other derived containers comprise information extracted from
`
`said information repository” (Ex. 1001, 16:34–37). Petitioner points to
`
`derived containers that comprise child derived containers, e.g., “‘Software’
`
`(130)” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:14–15, Fig. 1E)) and other containers that
`
`comprise URL hyperlinks, e.g., “‘White Papers’ (140)” (id. at 39 (citing Ex.
`
`1003, 7:48–49)). Petitioner additionally points to teachings in Fox that
`
`Petitioner contends further support that the URL hyperlinks contain
`
`information extracted from the information repository. Id. at 40 (citing Ex.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`1004, 362–63). On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted
`
`contentions and evidence with respect to claim 9.
`
`Claim 10 is similar to claim 9, except claim 10 recites that the
`
`contents comprise both child derived containers and information extracted
`
`from the information repository (Ex. 1001, 16:39–41). Petitioner points to
`
`Jones teaching of “‘VRML’ from Figure 1E” (id. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`6:55–56, 7:10–27, Fig. 1E)). On this record, we are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner’s unrebutted contentions and evidence with respect to claim 10.
`
`Claim 13 recites the following further limitations: “various ones of the
`
`container definition nodes forming said information model comprise
`
`pointers which establish a hierarchical relationship between said container
`
`definition nodes of said information model” and “said code for creating a
`
`hierarchy of derived containers determines the hierarchical relationship of
`
`said derived containers by referring to said information model” (Ex. 1001,
`
`16:59–67). In addition to Petitioner’s contentions discussed above with
`
`respect to independent claim 8, Petitioner, for example, points to the
`
`“NAME” field taught in Jones. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:64–7:1). Jones
`
`teaches, consistent with Petitioner’s contentions (id.) that the “NAME” field
`
`is used “to encode the hierarchical relationships between nodes.” Ex. 1003,
`
`6:65–66. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted
`
`evidence with respect to claim 13.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that, on this record, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 9, 10, and 13.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 18–20 over Jones, Fox, and Williams
`
`Petitioner contends that each of claims 18–20 of the ’229 Patent is
`
`rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Jones, Fox, and Williams.
`
`Pet. 45–49.
`
`1. Williams
`
`Williams teaches facilitating browsing of Web pages. Ex. 1006,
`
`Abstract. In particular, Williams teaches navigation of Web pages using a
`
`system in which the users use a terminal and browser to request and obtain
`
`pages from a server, which are then displayed to the user on a display. Id. at
`
`2:45–48. Williams further teaches that the server and browser may be co-
`
`located on the same computer. Id. at 2:62–63.
`
`2. Claim 18
`
`Independent claim 18 is the same as independent claim 8, except that
`
`claim 18 recites a computer performing method steps, each of which
`
`corresponds to a recitation in claim 8. Compare Ex. 1001, 18:7–22, with id.
`
`at 16:16–32. Petitioner contends that, to the extent that claim 18 is
`
`interpreted as requiring that the same physical computer perform each of the
`
`steps recited in claim 18, Williams explains that a server and browser may
`
`be co-located on the same computer. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:62–63).
`
`Our review of Williams reveals that Williams teaches end-user terminals
`
`executing browser software to request Web pages. Ex. 1006, 2:39–48,
`
`Fig. 1. Additionally, Williams teaches that “the server and the browser may
`
`even be co-located on the same computer.” Id. at 2:62–63.
`
`Petitioner contends that adapting Williams teaching of a co-located
`
`server and browser to Jones would have been a predictable variation of
`
`Jones. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). Additionally, Petitioner contends
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`that implementing a Web server and browser on the same computer was
`
`commonly employed to test new Web sites. Id. at 48 (citing Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner’s contentions are unrebutted. As to whether
`
`Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for combining the teachings of
`
`Williams with the combined teachings of Jones and Fox, we are persuaded
`
`that, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has
`
`articulated sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Jones and Fox
`
`with Williams.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that, on this record, Petitioner
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of independent claim 18.
`
`3. Claims 19 and 20
`
`Each of claims 19 and 20 depends directly from claim 18 and recites
`
`the same additional limitations recited in dependent claims 9 and 10,
`
`respectively. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 9 and
`
`10, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner’s unrebutted evidence with respect to claims 19 and 20.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that, on this record, Petitioner demonstrates a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims
`
`19 and 20.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 15 and 17 over Jones, Fox, and Forta
`
`Petitioner contends that each of claims 15 and 17 of the ’229 Patent is
`
`rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Jones, Fox, and Forta. Pet.
`
`49–60.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00523
`Patent 6,321,229 B1
`
`1. Forta
`
`Forta teaches a creation of Web sites using a particular Web
`
`application development tool, referred to as Cold Fusion. Ex. 1005, 11.
`
`Cold Fusion uses Structured Query Language (“SQL”) for database
`
`interaction. Id. at 117.
`
`2. Claim 15
`
`Claim 15 depends from claim 8 and further recites “wherein each of
`
`said derived containers inherits at least one attribute from its corresponding
`
`container definition node, said at least one attribute comprising a selection
`
`criteria attribute which determines the category of information stored in said
`
`information repository to which a derived container corresponds” (Ex. 1001,
`
`17:5–10). Petitioner points to Jones’s teaching of a LABEL field for
`
`teaching “each of said derived containers inherits at least one attribute from
`
`its corresponding container definition node,” as recited in claim 15. Pet. 50
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 7:1–3) (emphasis omitted). Jones teaches that the LABEL
`
`field contains the text label that is displayed for a node. Ex. 1003, 7:1–3.
`
`On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we are p