`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR No. Unassigned
`U.S. Patent 6,014,698
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER KENT
`
`
`
`IPR of US Pat. No. 6,014,698
`
`
`i
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1003
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`Overview ......................................................................................................... 1
`II. My Background and Qualifications ................................................................ 2
`III. List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinion ......................... 4
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 5
`V.
`State of the Art ................................................................................................ 6
`VI. Overview of the '698 Patent.......................................................................... 11
`VII. Overview of Prior Art References ................................................................ 13
`VIII. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 14
`A.
`"Content General Request Signal" ...................................................... 15
`B.
`"Content Specific Request Signal" ...................................................... 17
`IX. Legal Principles ............................................................................................ 18
`X. Grounds of Unpatentability .......................................................................... 22
`A. Ground 1: Angles, Merriman, and HTTP1.0 (1-3, 5-7, 9, and
`11-16) .................................................................................................. 22
`Ground 2: Wexler and HTTP1.0 (1, 6, 7, 9, and 11-16) ..................... 42
`B.
`Ground 3: Wexler, HTTP1.0, and Meeker (2, 3, and 5) ..................... 59
`C.
`XI. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Peter Kent, hereby declare as follows.
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Google Inc. for
`
`the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR). I am being compensated for my
`
`time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate, which is $350 per
`
`hour. I understand that the petition for inter partes review involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,014,698 ("the '698 patent", GOOG 1001), which resulted from U.S. Application
`
`No. 08/872,971 ("the '971 application"), filed on June 11, 1997, naming Michael
`
`John Griffiths as the inventor. I understand that the '971 application claims benefit
`
`of U.S. Application No. 08/858,650, filed on May 19, 1997. I further understand
`
`that, according to USPTO records, the '698 patent is currently assigned to At Home
`
`Bondholders' Liquidating Trust ("Patentee").
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the '698 patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant
`
`art. I have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the field of web-based information management
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and delivery, defined further below in Section IV) prior to May 19, 1997. I am
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`familiar with the technology at issue as of the May 19, 1997, the earliest possible
`
`benefit date of the '698 patent. I am also familiar with the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art with respect to the technology at issue as of the May 19, 1997 earliest
`
`possible benefit date.
`
`II. My Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`Throughout the remainder of this declaration, I will refer to the field
`
`of network architecture and information delivery as the relevant field or the
`
`relevant art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current curriculum
`
`vitae is provided as GOOG 1004, and it provides a comprehensive description of
`
`my academic and employment history.
`
`5.
`
`I had direct experience with banner advertising dating back to the
`
`mid-1990s and am very familiar with banner advertising mechanisms during that
`
`time frame. I am experienced with a variety of advertising systems from the mid-
`
`1990s to the present, all of which included various tools for counting ad
`
`impressions. Over the last 20 years, I worked with numerous systems that count
`
`hits of various kinds such as Google Analytics, Analog, AWStats, Webalizer,
`
`Urchin, and Webtrends.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`6.
`
`I am knowledgeable with respect to clearing and blocking browser
`
`caches and cache-blocking mechanisms that ensure that the correct ad is displayed
`
`with various HTML meta tags, such as the pragma and cache-control tags. I began
`
`working with HTML in 1993 and have been involved in Web development in
`
`various roles since then.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to authoring online-advertising portions of Poor Richard's
`
`Web Site in 1997, I authored Pay Per Click Search Engine Marketing for Dummies
`
`in 2005.
`
`8. My other publications related to online advertising include How to
`
`Make Money Online with eBay, Yahoo!, and Google; Poor Richard's Internet
`
`Marketing and Promotions: How to Promote Yourself, Your Business, Your Ideas
`
`Online; and The CDnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet.
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive online experience, dating back to 1984 (e.g.,
`
`participating in bulletin boards and online services, designing CompuServe
`
`navigation tools, and creating web pages). I have been working on the Internet day-
`
`to-day since 1993. I also have been working in software development since 1981
`
`and in cyberspace-software development since 1991.
`
`10.
`
`I received a B.A. degree, in Geography/Geology, from University of
`
`Sheffield, United Kingdom, in 1978.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`11. My additional contributions to the field are set forth in my current
`
`curriculum vitae (GOOG 1004).
`
`III. List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinion
`
`12.
`documents:
`
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered
`
`the following
`
`Description
`
`Griffiths et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,286,698 (filed May 19, 1997;
`issued September 4, 2001).
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,286,698.
`
`Wexler, U.S. Patent No. 5,960,409 (filed October 11, 1996, issued
`September 28, 1999).
`
`Fielding et al., "HTTP Working Group Internet Draft Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.0"(dated February 19, 1996; published
`February 20, 1996).
`
`Garland et al., "Implementing Distributed Server Groups for the
`World Wide Web" Carnegie Mellon University (January 25, 1995).
`
`Meeker, Mary, "Technology: Internet/New Media The Internet
`Advertising Report" Morgan Stanley, U.S. Investment Research
`(January 1997).
`
`Angles et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,933,811 (filed August 20, 1996,
`issued August 3, 1999).
`
`Merriman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,948,061 (filed October 29, 1996,
`issued September 7, 1999).
`
`Davis et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,796,952 (filed March 21, 1997, issued
`August 18, 1998).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit #
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1021
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`Description
`
`J. Mogul and P. Leach, "Simple Hit-Metering for HTTP" (dated
`January 21, 1997; published January 22, 1997).
`
`C. Brown and S. Benford, "Tracking WWW Users: Experience from
`the Design of HyperVisVR," Webnet 96, Oct. 15-19, 1996.
`
`H. Skardal, "A Trip Report and some reflections," W3C Meeting on
`Web Efficiency and Robustness (Apr. 22, 1996).
`"WRQ Express PageMeter delivers breakthrough accuracy in Web
`metering," Business Wire, Apr. 28, 1997.
`Lopez-Ortiz, et al., "A Multicollaborative Push-Caching HTTP
`Protocol for the WWW" December 28, 1995.
`
`
`
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`("POSA") would have had knowledge of Internet advertising including banner
`
`display counting, cache usage, and various HTTP-related technologies as of 1997.
`
`14. Applying the above understanding, it is my opinion that, as a general
`
`matter, a POSA at the time of the filing of the '698 patent would have had at least
`
`(a) a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and/or a similar field or (b) at
`
`least 3 years of experience in web-based information management and delivery
`
`systems.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`15. Counting accuracy for delivered content was a widely known issue at
`
`the time of the '698 patent's earliest possible benefit date, and the proposed solution
`
`in the '698 patent was also already widely known. In fact, attempting to improve
`
`counting accuracy via cache avoidance was such a burden on the Web's bandwidth
`
`by early 1997 that other proposals were already being made to move advertisers
`
`away from the use of cache-avoidance. As stated in a HTTP Working Group
`
`memo:
`
`For a variety of reasons, content providers want to be
`able to collect information on the frequency with which
`their content is accessed. This desire leads to some of the
`"cache-busting" done by existing servers (exactly how
`much is unknown). This kind of cache-busting is done
`not for the purpose of maintaining transparency or
`security properties, but simply to collect demographic
`information. It has also been pointed out that some
`cache-busting
`is also done to provide different
`advertising images to appear on the same page (i.e.,
`each retrieval of the page sees a different ad.)
`
`…
`
`HTTP/1.1 already allows origin servers to prevent
`caching of responses, and we have evidence that at least
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`some of the time, this is being done for the sole purpose
`of collecting counts of the number of accesses of specific
`pages.
`
`(GOOG 1016, pp. 2-31.)
`
`16. Another reference describes various cache avoidance techniques
`
`including HTTP no-cache pragma, appending a random segment to the URL, and
`
`using a cgi script to generate dynamic pages:
`
`Many content providers have resorted to "beating the
`cache" when attempting to obtain full access statistics
`and
`tracking
`information. HTTP/1.0 specifies a
`'Pragma: no-cache' header, which is an instruction to the
`cache server not to cache that object. However, due to the
`misuse of the header by content providers, many proxy
`cache administrators have resorted to ignoring the header
`and caching the resource anyway. Cache busting
`methods include appending a random segment to the
`URL which confuses the cache into thinking that all
`the resources are different, and generating all pages
`dynamically through a cgi-script, the results of which
`do not get cached.
`
`(GOOG 1017, pp. 7-8.)
`
`1 Emphasis added throughout, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`17. The idea of using "cache-busting" to get accurate hit counts for an
`
`advertisement server was widely known and used. For example, Skardal states that
`
`"[t]here are phenomenons in the Web working against caching. One is the 'hit
`
`count problem' where content providers modify the URL's to be CGI/non-
`
`cacheable URL's in order to improve
`
`'hit count', which is needed for
`
`advertisement counting." (GOOG 1018, p. 2.) In another example, Business Wire
`
`reported that "[u]ntil now, web metering products could not accurately count page
`
`requests because of caching by both proxy servers and browsers. With Express
`
`PageMeter, however, the web server is notified each time the page is requested,
`
`even when it is served from cache." (GOOG 1019, p. 1.)
`
`18. HTTP redirect was also widely employed in the field of information
`
`delivery (including delivery of online advertisements). Among many examples,
`
`Wexler describes a third party accounting and statistical service "configured to
`
`issue a '302' redirect response when a specific URL is requested." (GOOG 1007,
`
`5:16-17.) Similarly, Merriman describes an advertisement server for "send[ing] the
`
`redirect message causing the user's browser to receive the URL for the advertiser's
`
`web site based upon data stored in the server." (GOOG 1013, 7:22-26.)
`
`19. HTTP redirect provided many benefits that web developers at the time
`
`(including developers for web-based online advertisement) would recognize. One
`
`well-known use of HTTP redirect messages was to refer a client computer to a
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`server located in the close geographical proximity of the client for reducing
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`latency. (See GOOG 1021, p. 6; see also GOOG 1009, p. 9 ("The dispatcher would
`
`then take network load and proximity into account when deciding which server to
`
`transfer a client to.") Another well-known use of HTTP redirect messages was to
`
`refer the client computer to a selected server in a group of distributed servers. It
`
`was well known in the art that using a group of web servers can reduce latency
`
`because a distributed web server group can balance the load and dispatch the
`
`request to the least loaded web server. (See GOOG 1009, pp. 1 and 3.) It was also
`
`well known in the art at the time that a group of web servers could use a HTTP
`
`redirect message to tell the web browser to contact the least loaded server. (See
`
`GOOG 1009, p. 4.)
`
`20.
`
`In web-based systems, a cache is a collection of locally stored web
`
`resources, such as web pages, embedded images, and other types of digital data
`
`retrieved over the Internet using HTTP. HTTP1.0 defines a cache as:
`
`A program's local store of response messages and the
`subsystem that controls its message storage, retrieval, and
`deletion. A cache stores cachable responses in order to
`reduce
`the response
`time and network bandwidth
`consumption on future, equivalent requests. Any client or
`server may include a cache, though a cache cannot be
`used by a server while it is acting as a tunnel.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(GOOG 1008, p. 6.)
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`HTTP 1.0 also defines the standard function when caching is involved:
`
`Any party to the communication which is not acting as a
`tunnel may employ an internal cache for handling
`requests. The effect of a cache
`is
`that
`the
`request/response chain is shortened if one of the
`participants along the chain has a cached response
`applicable to that request. The following illustrates the
`resulting chain if B has a cached copy of an earlier
`response from O (via C) for a request which has not been
`cached by UA or A.
`
`request chain ---------->
`
`UA -----v----- A -----v----- B - - - - - - C - - - - - - O
`
`<--------- response chain
`
`(GOOG 1008, pp. 6-7.)
`
`21. Caching behavior may be modified. "Not all responses are cachable,
`
`and some requests may contain modifiers which place special requirements on
`
`cache behavior. Some HTTP/1.0 applications use heuristics to describe what is or
`
`is not a 'cachable' response, but these rules are not standardized." (GOOG 1008, p.
`
`7.)
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`22.
`
`In other words, with default functioning of caching (i.e., no cache
`
`modifier specified), before the web browser on a client device sends a HTTP
`
`request, the web browser first checks to see if there is a cached copy of the
`
`requested response on the client device. If not, the web browser sends the HTTP
`
`request. If a proxy is used to forward the HTTP request to the web server, the
`
`proxy processes the HTTP request similarly. The proxy first checks to see if there
`
`is a cached copy of the requested response. If not, the proxy forwards the HTTP
`
`request to the web server.
`
`VI. Overview of the '698 Patent
`
`23. The '698 patent describes methods for "allowing information [e.g.
`
`advertisement banners] to be accessed by terminals connected to the computer
`
`network." (GOOG 1001, Abstract.) Despite the length of the '698 patent claims,
`
`these claims do no more than add a few conventional steps to a standard method of
`
`delivering a "banner" referenced in a web page. The added steps include sending a
`
`non-blockable first request and a redirect signal triggering a second request to
`
`retrieve the banner. As discussed further below, these added steps themselves were
`
`well known in the art before the earliest possible priority date for the present
`
`application.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`24.
`
`In the Background of the Invention section of the '698 patent, Patentee
`
`argues that the "nature and extent of the problem of miscounting displays of
`
`banners is not well known or even understood in the industry or by people of
`
`ordinary skill in the art." (GOOG 1001, 3:19-22.) Accordingly, "despite the well-
`
`developed state of the art in the displaying of information, banners, and
`
`advertisements in conjunction with web pages, documents, or other information,
`
`there is still a need for a system for storing and delivering information and banners
`
`on a computer network where accurate counts of the number of times each piece of
`
`information and banner is displayed can be made and the information and banners
`
`are displayed quickly and efficiently to users or terminals." (GOOG 1001, 3:22-
`
`30.)
`
`25. To achieve this so-called "accurate count[] of the number of times
`
`each piece of information and banner is displayed," the '698 patent essentially
`
`retrieves a banner utilizing two requests. The first request is non-blockable, and the
`
`server basically counts the number of non-blockable requests received as the
`
`number of displays. The second request is triggered by a redirect signal returned by
`
`the server, and the client computer sends the second request to retrieve the banner
`
`and display the banner in a web page. The second request is blockable (that is,
`
`there is nothing special about the second request; it is a HTTP request with
`
`standard default cache behavior).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`26. Given the practice of cache avoidance and well-known operation of
`
`using a HTTP redirect to trigger a second HTTP request, combining a non-
`
`blockable HTTP request and a HTTP redirect message would have been obvious to
`
`a POSA at the time of the '698 patent's earliest possible benefit date.
`
`27.
`
`Indeed, a skilled person would have understood that the prior art
`
`references render obvious the claims. Not only are the independent claims a mere
`
`recitation of known technology, but the dependent claims do not serve to claim
`
`further novel features. Rather, they provide increasing levels of detail for otherwise
`
`conventional banner delivery and counting systems and processes.
`
`VII. Overview of Prior Art References
`
`28. U.S. Patent No. 5,960,409 to Wexler (GOOG 1007), filed October 11,
`
`1996. It is my understanding that Wexler is a prior art reference to the '698 patent.
`
`29.
`
`"HTTP Working Group Internet Draft Hypertext Transfer Protocol –
`
`HTTP/1.0," by Fielding et al. (HTTP1.0 or GOOG 1008), published on February
`
`20, 1996. It is my understanding that HTTP1.0 is a prior art reference to the '698
`
`patent.
`
`30.
`
`"Technology: Internet/New Media The Internet Advertising Report"
`
`by Meeker (GOOG 1010), published in January 1997. It is my understanding that
`
`Meeker is a prior art reference to the '698 patent.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`31. U.S. Patent No. 5,933,811 to Angles et al. (GOOG 1012), filed on
`
`August 20, 1996. It is my understanding that Angles is a prior art reference to the
`
`'698 patent.
`
`32. U.S. Patent No. 5,948,061 to Merriman et al. (GOOG 1013), filed on
`
`October 29, 1996. It is my understanding that Merriman is a prior art reference to
`
`the '698 patent.
`
`33. U.S. Patent No. 5,796,952 to Davis et al. (GOOG 1014), filed on
`
`March 21, 1997. It is my understanding that Davis is a prior art reference to the
`
`'698 patent.
`
`34. By 1997 and prior to the invention, all the technology at issue in the
`
`'698 patent was broadly applied and well known by developers of web-based
`
`information delivery. No individual elements of the '698 claims were novel at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, and there was nothing novel about the manner in
`
`which those elements were combined in the claim. Further, there were no
`
`technological barriers to combining these elements to form the claimed invention.
`
`VIII. Claim Construction
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the challenged claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretations ("BRI") in light of the specification of the '698 patent,
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which means that the words of the claims should be given their broadest possible
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`meaning consistent with the specification of the '698 patent.2
`
`A.
`
`"Content General Request Signal"
`
`36. Claim 6 recites a "content general request signal." The '698 patent
`
`specification states:
`
`In other words, the initial banner request signal generated
`by terminal 36 during the step 112 can be a content
`general signal and may contain only the minimum
`amount of information needed to tell a designated
`computer site, information server, or other device which
`receives the initial banner request signal and on which a
`banner may or may not be stored or located, only that the
`terminal 36 desires that an unspecified banner be served
`to the terminal.
`
` (GOOG 1001, 15:20-28.)
`
`
`2 I also understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation used here may
`
`be different from the interpretation that a POSA may give to the claims in another
`
`context—e.g., in litigation—and that the broadest reasonable interpretation may be
`
`informed by the construction advanced by a patentee in litigation.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`37. The '698 patent specification further states "[i]f the optional selection
`
`step 113 is used with the method 110, the terminal 36 will only request during step
`
`112 that a banner be served to the terminal 36, but the terminal 36 will not specify
`
`which banner is to be served to the terminal 36." (GOOG 1001, 15:37-41.)
`
`38. The '698 patent specification additionally states:
`
`A general content URL address for a banner does not
`provide the necessary information to determine which
`banner is to be displayed. Rather a general content URL
`address for a banner only indicates that a banner is to be
`displayed and the receiver of the signal generated by the
`terminal 36 during the step 112 can decide which banner
`is to be displayed during the selection step 113. A general
`content URL address for a banner could be of the form
`http://www.bannersite1.com/image;spacedesc=contentsit
`ename.
`
`(GOOG 1001, 16:62-17:3.)
`
`39. Further, "The space descriptor field in the general content URL
`
`address can reference different groups of banners such as, for example, a collection
`
`of car advertisements, a collection of detergent advertisements, etc., depending on
`
`the web page providing the general content URL address." (GOOG 1001, 17:15-
`
`20.)
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`40. Under BRI, a POSA would therefore have understood the term
`
`"content general request signal" to mean "a request indicating that information is to
`
`be displayed and that the receiver can decide what information is to be displayed."
`
`B.
`
`"Content Specific Request Signal"
`
`41. Claim 7 recites a "content specific request signal." The '698 patent
`
`specification states:
`
`If the optional selection step 113 is not used with the
`method 110, the terminal 36 will request during the step
`112 that a specific banner to [sic] be served to the
`terminal 36.
`
` (GOOG 1001, 15:35-37.)
`
`42. The '698 patent specification states:
`
`In order to speed up the process of downloading,
`transmitting, or serving a specific banner from an
`information server to the terminal 56, the content specific
`URL address of the requested or selected banner sent to
`the terminal during step 114 can contain the exact
`Internet Protocol (IP) address of the requested or selected
`banner. For example, instead of providing the specific
`content URL
`address
`for
`the banner 62
`as
`http://www.bannersite1.com/banner1.gif,
`the
`specific
`content URL address for the banner 62 could be provided
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`as, for example, http://236.45.78.190/banner1.gif, thereby
`removing any need to use the Domain Name System
`(DNS)
`to
`convert
`the
`alphanumeric
`address
`"www.bannersite1.com" of the information server to its
`exact IP address.
`
`(GOOG 1001, 19:7-20.)
`
`43. Under BRI, a POSA would therefore have understood the term
`
`"content specific request signal" to mean "a request containing a content specific
`
`URL address with the location of the information."
`
`IX.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`44.
`
`I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope
`
`of the '698 patent claims. I understand that claims subject to inter partes review are
`
`given the "broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears." 42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious. I
`
`understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim is
`
`expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference. I do not render
`
`opinions regarding anticipation in connection with this proceeding.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`("POSA") in view of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the art. I
`
`also understand that when a POSA would have reached the claimed invention
`
`through routine experimentation, the invention may be deemed obvious.
`
`47.
`
`I also understand that obviousness can be established by combining or
`
`modifying the teachings of the prior art. Specific teachings, suggestions, or
`
`motivations to combine any first or primary prior art reference with a second prior
`
`art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before the '698
`
`patent earliest possible benefit date. I understand that prior art references
`
`themselves may be one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine
`
`features of the prior art, but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art
`
`may come from other sources as well. Specifically, the sources may include logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense available to a POSA rather than explicit statements
`
`in the prior art. I understand that it is not proper to combine references when there
`
`is a teaching away of such a combination. However, a reference's mere disclosure
`
`of more than one alternative does not constitute teaching away from any of these
`
`alternatives.
`
`48.
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of
`
`success from combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`analysis. I understand there may be a number of rationales that may support a
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`conclusion of obviousness, including:
`
` Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
` Substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
` Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
` Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
` "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
` Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
` Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`49.
`
`I understand that it is not proper to use hindsight to combine
`
`references or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims
`
`as a guide. My analysis of the prior art is made as of the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that so-called objective considerations may be relevant to
`
`the determination of whether a claim is obvious should the Patent Owner allege
`
`such evidence. Such objective considerations can include evidence of commercial
`
`success caused by an invention, evidence of a long-felt need that was solved by an
`
`invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence that an invention
`
`achieved a surprising result. I understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or
`
`causal relationship to the elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the claim. I am unaware of any such secondary
`
`considerations having a nexus to the claims at issue in this proceeding.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that for a reference to be used to show a claim is obvious,
`
`the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. I understand that a
`
`reference is analogous to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same
`
`field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different problem,
`
`or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor,
`
`even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. I understand
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that a reference is reasonably pertinent based on the problem faced by the inventor
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,014,698
`Declaration of Peter Kent (GOOG 1003)
`
`as reflected in the specification, either explicitly or implicitly.
`
`X. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`52. Below, I will first describe the relevant disclosures of Wexler,
`
`HTTP1.0, Meeker, Angles, and Merriman, and how they would have been
`
`combined to show each feature of the challenged claims. Particularly, I explain the
`
`different grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Index of Reference(s)
`Ground 35 USC
`1
`§103(a) Angles, Merriman, HTTP1.0
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`§103(a) Wexler, HTTP1.0
`
`§103(a) Wexler, HTTP1.0, Meeker
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5-7, 9,
`11-16
`1, 6, 7, 9, 11-
`16
`2, 3, 5
`
`A. Ground 1: Angles, Merriman, and HTTP1.0 (1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-16)
`53. As shown by the following discussion, each and every element of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-16 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of
`
`Angles, Merriman, and HT
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
