UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Patent 6,317,783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 5 
`
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5 
`
`A. 
`
`“non-public personal information” (claims 1, 18, 20) .......................... 5 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction is Correct ..................... 6 
`
`The Full Term Should be Given Patentable Weight ................. 11 
`
`“intermediary web site” (claims 14, 33) ............................................. 15 
`
`“protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely
`stored personal information via the network” (claims 1, 18, and 20) . 17 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`IV.  PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT ANY CLAIM OF THE
`’783 PATENT IS INVALID ......................................................................... 19 
`
`A. 
`
`Sugiarto and Brandt Do Not Render Obvious Independent Claims 1,
`18, and 20 Regardless of Whether “non-public personal information”
`is Given Patentable Weight ................................................................. 21 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The references do not disclose a “protocol for instructing the
`processor how to access the securely stored personal
`information via the network” .................................................... 21 
`
`The references do not disclose “storing the retrieved personal
`information in [a/the] personal information store” ................... 26 
`
`B. 
`
`Sugiarto and Brandt Do Not Render Obvious Independent Claims 1,
`18, and 20 if “non-public personal information” is Given Patentable
`Weight ................................................................................................. 30 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The references do not disclose “non-public personal
`information” .............................................................................. 30 
`
`The references do not disclose non-public personal information
`“also being accessible by the end user via the network
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`independently of the system for delivering personal
`information” .............................................................................. 38 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination is Deficient and the References
`Teach Away from Making this Combination ...................................... 39 
`
`Sugiarto and Brandt Do Not Render Obvious the Dependent Claims of
`the ’783 Patent, Regardless of Whether “non-public personal
`information” is Given Patentable Weight ........................................... 43 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The references do not disclose “intermediary web site” (claims
`14-17, 33-36) ............................................................................. 43 
`
`The references do not disclose “associated user interface
`format” / “format associated with the intermediary web site” /
`“format other than the format associated with the intermediary
`web site” (claims 14, 15, 17, 33, 34, 36) .................................. 45 
`
`The references do not disclose “monitoring information
`providers for changes” (claims 2 and 21) ................................. 46 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 47 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 41
`
`In re Distefano,
`808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 11
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 29, 32, 36
`
`In re Lowry,
`32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Block Financial Corp.,
`No. 03-0831-CV-W-DW (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2004) ........................................... 10
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc.,
`No. C 05-01550 SI, Dkt. 66 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006) ........................................ 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 32
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`ESPN Insider: Benefits, WayBackMachine June 22, 2001
`Declaration of David Barkan in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`2002
`Vice Admission
`Declaration of Matthew McCullough in Support of Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Todd C. Mowry in Support of Petition in Case No.
`CBM2016-00045
`Transcript of Deposition of Todd Mowry
`Memorandum Opinion re Claim Construction, Yodlee, Inc. v.
`Plaid Techs., Inc., No. 14-1445-LPS, Dkt. 96 (D. Del. Jan. 15,
`2016)
`Declaration of Zaydoon Jawadi in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response
`Curriculum Vitae of Zaydoon Jawadi
`Order re Claim Construction, Yodlee, Inc. v. Block Financial
`Corp., No. 03-0831-CV-W-DW, Dkt. 79 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2,
`2004)
`Claim Construction Order, Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No. C
`05-01550 SI, Dkt. 66 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006)
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, the Patent Owner, Yodlee, Inc. (“Yodlee” or
`
`“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following Response in opposition to the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 (“the ʼ783
`
`Patent”) numbered IPR2016-00273, filed by Plaid Technologies, Inc. (“Plaid” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board instituted this trial because it concluded that the claim term “non-
`
`public personal information” was printed matter and not entitled to patentable
`
`weight. However, entirely separate and independent from the question of whether
`
`“non-public personal information” should be given patentable weight, the prior art
`
`cited in the Petition fails to disclose numerous elements of the ’783 Patent claims,
`
`including the “protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely
`
`stored personal information via the network” and “storing the retrieved personal
`
`information in [a/the] personal information store” – limitations which appear in
`
`every independent claim of the ’783 Patent. Thus, because the prior art fails to
`
`disclose every element of any of the ’783 Patent claims, the Board should confirm
`
`the validity of all claims of the ’783 Patent.
`
`Neither Sugiarto nor Brandt include the “protocol for instructing the processor
`
`how to access the securely stored personal information via the network” recited in
`
`each independent claim, regardless of whether “non-public personal information” is
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`given patentable weight. Sugiarto fails to disclose any authentication method for
`
`retrieving information. Brandt fails to disclose any automatic authentication
`
`method – Brandt requires the user to manually log in each time the user wants to
`
`access an application. Furthermore, Brandt fails to disclose retrieving information
`
`of any type – it merely grants a user access to an application, through which the user
`
`may interact with a GUI to manually perform various tasks. Neither Sugiarto nor
`
`Brandt disclose the claimed protocol.
`
`Additionally, Sugiarto and Brandt fail to disclose “storing the retrieved
`
`personal information in [a/the] personal information store” as recited by each
`
`independent claim, again regardless of whether “non-public personal information”
`
`is given patentable weight. Neither Sugiarto nor Brandt disclose storing any
`
`retrieved information of any type. Petitioner has only made obviousness and
`
`inherency arguments, but the references do not suggest or require storing
`
`information in a personal information store. Thus, Sugiarto and Brandt fail to
`
`disclose this limitation.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board failed to
`
`appreciate the numerous ways in which the “non-public personal information” has a
`
`structural and functional relationship to other claim elements. Thus, “non-public
`
`personal information” should be given patentable weight and should be construed
`
`by the Board.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`Specifically,
`
`the fact
`
`that
`
`the
`
`information
`
`is “non-public personal
`
`information” relates to the claimed “protocol” used to access that information,
`
`because the protocol must know how to log in or authenticate as a user precisely
`
`because the information is non-public personal information. Additionally, the fact
`
`that the information is “non-public personal information” is related to the claimed
`
`“end user data” which includes the verification information (such as a user name and
`
`password) because the information is non-public personal information. Finally, the
`
`claimed “information providers securely storing the personal information” are
`
`securely storing that information because it is non-public personal information.
`
`Thus, it is clear that the status of information as “non-public personal information”
`
`has a functional and structural relationship to other aspects of the ’783 Patent claims.
`
`Even Petitioner’s expert agrees on this, agreeing that each of these claim elements
`
`are specifically motivated by the fact that the information is non-public personal
`
`information.
`
`Once “non-public personal information” is construed, it is clear that the cited
`
`prior art fails to invalidate the ’783 Patent claims. Neither Sugiarto nor Brandt
`
`disclose a system that automatically accesses and retrieves non-public personal
`
`information. Sugiarto retrieves only public information. Brandt doesn’t retrieve any
`
`information at all, it only provides access to software applications over the internet.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`Thus, neither Sugiarto nor Brandt disclose “non-public personal information” as
`
`recited in each independent claim of the ’783 Patent.
`
`Additionally, Sugiarto and Brandt fail to disclose that the non-public personal
`
`information “also being accessible by the end user via the network independently of
`
`the system for delivering personal information.” Sugiarto does not disclose any non-
`
`public personal information. Brandt teaches that the applications it grants access to
`
`are not accessible over the web, and explains that one of the purported advantages
`
`of the Brandt system is that an administrator need not provide any other web access
`
`to that application. Thus, neither Sugiarto nor Brandt disclose this limitation.
`
`In addition to the specific limitations that Sugiarto and Brandt fail to disclose,
`
`the combination itself is deficient. One of ordinary skill in the art would not combine
`
`Sugiarto and Brandt given their different focuses and fundamentally different
`
`architectures. Additionally, Dr. Mowry did not and cannot explain how his proposed
`
`combination would actually work. Instead, he relies on impermissible hindsight and
`
`also fails to make any showing of a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the
`
`references teach away from Petitioner’s proposed combination: Sugiarto criticizes
`
`the use of CGIs, which is precisely what Brandt uses to grant access to its
`
`applications.
`
`Finally, Sugiarto and Brandt fail to disclose elements of several of the
`
`dependent claims, including “intermediary web site” (claims 14-17, 33-36),
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`“associated user interface format” / “format associated with the intermediary web
`
`site” / “format other than the format associated with the intermediary web site”
`
`(claims 14, 15, 17, 33, 34, 36), and “monitoring information providers for changes”
`
`(claims 2 and 21). Each of these limitations are not disclosed in Brandt or Sugiarto
`
`(or Chow for claims 2 and 21), regardless of whether “non-public personal
`
`information” is given patentable weight.
`
`Thus, the prior art fails to render obvious any asserted claim of the ’783 Patent
`
`and the Board should therefore confirm patentability of all claims.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that this Board confirm patentability of all
`
`claims (1-36) of the ’783 Patent.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“non-public personal information” (claims 1, 18, 20)
`
`The term “non-public personal information” should be construed and given
`
`patentable weight for the reasons set forth below. In particular, the term “non-public
`
`personal information” should be construed to mean “information relating to a
`
`specific end user that is not intended for access by persons other than that end user
`
`or those authorized by that end user.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction is Correct
`
`Petitioner proposes that the term “non-public” be construed. However, the
`
`term “non-public” only appears in the claims as part of the larger phrase “non-public
`
`personal information.” In proposing and applying its construction, Petitioner
`
`effectively seeks to remove the word “personal” from the claims by asserting that
`
`any information which meets Petitioner’s proposed construction of “non-public,” is
`
`also “non-public personal information.” See Petition at 12. The specification makes
`
`clear that this is not the case. Petitioner’s own expert agrees that “non-public” and
`
`“personal” have different meanings. Ex. 2005, Mowry Deposition Transcript, at
`
`47:1-12, 50:2-9 (agreeing that information can be “non-public” but not “personal”
`
`and vice versa). Moreover, the specification makes it clear that “non-public personal
`
`information” has a specific meaning.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction (and in fact its entire argument for
`
`invalidity) appears to hinge on the incorrect assumption that any information for
`
`which a login is required is “non-public personal information.” This argument
`
`completely misses the point of the inventive system. As shown below, the prior art
`
`systems upon which Petitioner relies are systems that use logins as a means to extract
`
`payment from a user. For example, the ESPN Insider system, which purportedly
`
`shown in Exhibit 1011 and relied upon by Petitioner’s expert, required users to pay
`
`a fee to access news reports on sporting events. Ex. 2001, ESPN Insider: Benefits,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`WayBackMachine, June 22, 2001. This information, however, is no different from
`
`the stories published in the local newspaper. Like the ESPN Insider system, a reader
`
`must pay a fee to access the news stories (e.g., the one dollar purchase price for the
`
`paper), but regardless of how they are financed, news stories are not “non-public”
`
`much less “personal” information, as the ’783 Patent uses that term.
`
`As the specification of the ’783 Patent describes, “‘Personal Information’ is
`
`all of the data that companies, information providers, have that is specific or unique
`
`to each person such as monthly bills, bank account balances, investments
`
`information, health care benefits, email, voice and fax messages, 401(k) holdings or
`
`potentially any other information pertinent to a particular end user.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:15-21 (emphasis added); Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 20. The file history confirms
`
`that “the essence of personal information is that it is not accessible to the general
`
`public, i.e., other end users; rather, each information provider protects personal
`
`information relating to a specific end user against access by persons other than
`
`that end user or one acting under the authority of that end user.” Ex. 1003 at 168
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 21.
`
`Anyone who pays a fee can access a pay-for-news provider, such as ESPN
`
`Insider. That website is accessible to the general public. On the contrary, regardless
`
`of fee, no other person can (or at least should not be able to) access another person’s
`
`bank records, stock portfolio, etc., without authorization.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`The ’783 Patent clearly explains the difference between personal information
`
`like a local weather forecast (which it refers to as “Generic PI”), and the non-public
`
`personal information upon which the claims operate:
`
`Generic PI refers to PI of interest to the particular end user
`
`that does not require specific identity verification to
`
`obtain. For example, an end user might be interested in
`
`the weather forecast for his local area. This information
`
`could be integrated into a portal page without requiring
`
`identity verification of the particular end user receiving
`
`this PI. The individualized portal page provides a
`
`significant benefit to users seeking to aggregate generic PI.
`
`However, current portal pages do not generally provide
`
`PI requiring identity verification such as an end user's
`
`stock portfolio or bank balance.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:52-62 (emphasis added); Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 22. As the
`
`intrinsic evidence makes clear, this is “the essence” of claimed system. By
`
`definition, the public cannot access “non-public personal information” – only the
`
`specific user in question.
`
`While “pay for play” content and “non-public personal information” may use
`
`similar security features, such as a login, the security features used to protect non-
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`public personal information do not somehow convert that claim limitation to include
`
`all information regardless of whether it is public or personal into “non-public
`
`personal information.”1
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction appears to be reading out “personal” from
`
`the claim language. Petitioner’s expert even stated that he thought this was “not
`
`relevant.” Ex. 2005 at 54:11-12, 54:20-21. A construction that reads out certain
`
`claim language is improper. See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d
`
`1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the
`
`terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”)
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is further confirmed by claim 1’s
`
`recitation of “securely storing” as a requirement separate and apart from “non-public
`
`personal information.” If, as Petitioner asserts, all information that is protected by a
`
`
`1 For example, Petitioner relies on the language “such as by logging onto a Web site”
`
`to support its construction of “non-public.” However, that statement was made in
`
`the context of how a user could access personal information “independently of the
`
`invention.” This corresponds to another aspect of the claim, particularly that the
`
`information is “accessible by the end user via the network independently of the
`
`system for delivering personal information.” See Ex. 1001, ’783 Patent, claim 1.
`
`This language does not inform the meaning of “non-public.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`login and password were “non-public personal information,” there would be no need
`
`to separately recite “securely storing” in the claims. The recitation of “securely
`
`storing” would render the “non-public personal” recitation wholly redundant.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with both of
`
`the two prior district courts that have construed the term “non-public personal
`
`information.” First, in Yodlee, Inc. v. Block Financial Corp., No. 03-0831-CV-W-
`
`DW, (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2004), the court construed this term as “Information/data
`
`that is specific to an end user and requires verification and access data for retrieval.”
`
`Ex. 2009 at 6-7. Similarly, in Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No. C 05-01550 SI,
`
`Dkt. 66 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006), the court construed this term as “information that
`
`is personal to a specific end user and not accessible to the general public.” Ex. 2010
`
`at 15. Both of these constructions include the same two basic concepts that are also
`
`present in Patent Owner’s proposed construction: (1) that the information is specific
`
`to an end user; and (2) that it is not accessible to the general public. Patent Owner’s
`
`construction likewise requires the information “relat[e] to a specific end user” and
`
`that it “is not intended for access by persons other than that end user or those
`
`authorized by that end user.” Patent Owner’s construction is therefore consistent
`
`with both prior district courts that have considered and construed this term.
`
`Accordingly, in line with the specification, Patent Owner proposes that the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of “non-public personal
`
`information”
`
`is
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`“information relating to a specific end user that is not intended for access by persons
`
`other than that end user or those authorized by that end user.”
`
`2.
`
`The Full Term Should be Given Patentable Weight
`
`The Board in its Decision (Paper 10) construed the term “non-public
`
`personal information” as merely “information,” concluding that the remaining
`
`words (“non-public personal”) were printed matter and not entitled to any
`
`patentable weight. The “non-public personal” aspect of this limitation, however, is
`
`entitled to patentable weight and thus should be construed by the Board because it
`
`“has a functional or structural relation” to the remaining aspects of the claim. See
`
`In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`As the ’783 Patent explains, non-public personal information is typically
`
`stored behind a unique login protocol. Ex. 1001 at 2:12-18; see also id. at 6:24-38.
`
`This is different from public information, which is typically available without the
`
`need for such a login protocol. Additionally, the ’783 Patent explains that
`
`retrieving this non-public personal information further requires “additional data
`
`and steps required for accessing each particular piece of PI on the PI provider's
`
`site.” Id. at 6:36-38. The Patent gives examples of using a software script to
`
`communicate with a website running forms, scripts, and/or applets. Id. at 10:5-24.
`
`Again, this is necessitated by the fact that non-public personal information is stored
`
`in particular ways that require the script to execute the necessary steps to access
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`the non-public personal information from the website once the script has logged
`
`into the website as the user. Therefore, both the functionality and the structure
`
`(i.e., the actual lines of software code) of the claimed protocol are directly affected
`
`by the nature of the information as “non-public personal information.”
`
`The claims here are similar to those in Lowry, where the Federal Circuit held
`
`that claims were entitled to patentable weight under the printed matter doctrine
`
`because they described how the claimed information was stored, which provided a
`
`functional relationship. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`
`(holding claims entitled to patentable weight because the claimed data objects
`
`included “information regarding their physical interrelationships within a memory”
`
`and thus “define[d] functional characteristics of the memory”). The claims here
`
`also depend on the details of how non-public personal information is stored (i.e.,
`
`that it stored behind a login protocol), and thus also contain a functional
`
`relationship to the remainder of the claim language (i.e., that the non-public
`
`personal nature of the information necessitates the claimed protocol in order to be
`
`able to access the information). The “non-public personal information” limitation
`
`should therefore be given patentable weight under Lowry.
`
`Specifically, the fact that the claimed information is “non-public personal”
`
`information is functionally and structurally related to each of the following
`
`elements of each of the independent claims: (1) the “protocol for instructing the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`processor how to access the securely stored personal information via the network”;
`
`(2) the “end user data”; and (3) the “information providers securely storing the
`
`personal information.” Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 28. The claims as a whole
`
`make clear that the inventive system of the ’783 Patent is functionally and
`
`structurally related to the fact that the information upon which the claims operate is
`
`“non-public personal information.”
`
`First, the “protocol” limitation is functionally and structurally related to the
`
`fact that the information is “non-public personal information.” Ex. 2007, Jawadi
`
`Decl. at ¶ 29. As explained below, the protocol term should be construed as a
`
`“software script detailing the steps necessary for instructing the processor how to
`
`login to a specific information provider as the end user, and return requested
`
`information via the network.” The nature of the information as “non-public” and
`
`“personal” is what necessitates that the protocol contain instructions for how to
`
`login as an end user and return the requested information. Id. In contrast, if the
`
`claimed information included public and generic information, as the Board’s
`
`construction allows, it would render the protocol limitation superfluous to the rest
`
`of the claim. See infra Section III.C below (explaining that the protocol limitation
`
`requires specific instructions for how to log in as the end user to obtain the non-
`
`public personal information).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`Similarly, the “end user data” is functionally and structurally related to the
`
`fact that the information is “non-public personal information.” Ex. 2007, Jawadi
`
`Decl. at ¶ 30. As the ’783 Patent explains, the “end user data” (which is stored in a
`
`user store) includes the “verification and access data” necessary to authenticate to a
`
`website. Ex. 1001, ’783 Patent at 9:37-41; Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 30.
`
`Finally, the “information providers securely storing the personal
`
`information” are functionally and structurally related to the fact that the claimed
`
`information is “non-public personal information.” Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 31.
`
`The claimed information is “securely stor[ed]” precisely because it is non-public
`
`personal information that should not be available to any user except the specific
`
`end user to whom the information relates. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s expert agrees that the “non-public personal” nature of the
`
`claimed information has a functional and structural relationship to other claim
`
`elements. Specifically, Dr. Mowry stated that the fact that the information is non-
`
`public “affect[s] how the mechanism functions” – where the mechanism refers to
`
`the claim as a whole. Ex. 2005 at 47:13-48:24. Dr. Mowry also stated that the
`
`functionality of the claims is “motivated by” the fact that you have to log in to
`
`access the non-public personal information. Id. at 48:25-49:8. Dr. Mowry also
`
`agreed that each of the specific limitations discussed above are motivated by the
`
`fact that the information is non-public personal information. Id. at 58:18-24 and
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`60:18-61:7 (“protocol” limitation); 59:4-14 (“securely storing”); and 66:1-11 (“end
`
`user data”).
`
`The “protocol,” “end user data,” and “securely storing” limitations appear in
`
`each of the independent claims 1, 18, and 20 of the ’783 Patent, and thus in each
`
`independent claim the phrase “non-public personal information” should be given
`
`patentable weight.
`
`B.
`
`“intermediary web site” (claims 14, 33)
`
`Petitioner argues that an “intermediary web site” must be served by a web
`
`server not running on the end user’s computer and not running on the “processor” of
`
`the claims. The Board in its Decision (Paper 10) construed this term as “a web site
`
`served from a location other than the personal information store and the end user’s
`
`computer.” Patent Owner proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation is “a
`
`web site served from a location other than the end user’s computer and other than
`
`the ‘processor’ and all associated data/storage (including the ‘personal information
`
`store,’ ‘end user data,’ ‘user store,’ ‘information provider data,’ and ‘provider
`
`store’).”
`
`As the Board recognized, the ’783 Patent explains that the intermediary
`
`website is a website interposed between the user’s computer and the PI engine.
`
`Paper 10 at 10-11; Ex. 1001, ’783 Patent at Fig. 5, 12:12-27; Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 34-35. However, the Board replaced the PI engine with the term “personal
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`information store” as the PI engine is not specifically claimed in the ’783 Patent
`
`claims. This alteration is not justified and improperly broadens the scope of the term
`
`“intermediary web site” because it only includes a small portion of the PI engine. It
`
`is undoubtedly true that the “personal information store” is part of the PI engine in
`
`the ’783 Patent. However, the PI engine also includes other claimed storage
`
`elements such as the PI provider store (also claimed as the “information provider
`
`data” in claims 1 and 18) and the user store (also claimed as the “end user data”
`
`claimed). Ex. 1001 at 4:54-56; Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 36. All of these
`
`data/storage elements should be included within the proper construction of
`
`“intermediary website.” Additionally, the PI engine includes various processing
`
`components such as the “PI access/transact component” and the “PI delivery
`
`component.” Ex. 1001 at 6:18-21; Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 36. In each of the
`
`independent claims, these steps are performed by the claimed “processor” and so the
`
`“processor” should also be included within the proper construction of “intermediary
`
`website.” Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at ¶ 36.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner submits that the proper construction of the “intermediary
`
`web site” should therefore be: “a web site served from a location other than the end
`
`user’s computer and other than the ‘processor’ and all associated data/storage
`
`(including the ‘personal information store,’ ‘end user data,’ ‘user store,’
`
`‘information provider data,’ and ‘provider store’).”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00273
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0047IP1
`
`C.
`“protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely
`stored personal information via the network” (claims 1, 18, and 20)
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the phrase “protocol for instructing the
`
`processor how to access the securely stored personal information via the network”
`
`means a “software script detailing the steps necessary for instructing the processor
`
`how to login to a specific information provider as the end user, and return
`
`requested information via the network.”
`
`As described in the claims and specification, the protocol instructs the
`
`processor on how to login and access the securely stored PI from an information
`
`provider. Ex. 1001 at claims 1, 18, 20. Each information provider typically has a
`
`unique login protocol involving steps where a user navigates to the website, enters
`
`credentials such as username and password, and then submits them for verification
`
`by the website. Id. at 2:12-18; see also id. at 6:24-38; Ex. 2007, Jawadi Decl. at
`
`¶ 43. Once access is