throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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. 11229, 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket