UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`EVERNOTE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TALSK RESEARCH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent No.: 7,178,097
`
`For: Method and System for Using a Communications Network to Archive and
`Retrieve Bibliography Information and Reference Material
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................ 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 1 
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2 
`
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 2 
`
`II.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................... 2 
`
`III. 
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of the Relief Requested ............................................................... 3 
`
`IV.  Overview of the ’097 Patent .......................................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Brief Description of the Alleged Invention ........................................... 3 
`
`Prosecution History of the ’097 Patent ................................................. 5 
`
`Summary of the Challenged Claims ..................................................... 7 
`
`V. 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 7 
`
`VI.  Construction of Claim Terms ....................................................................... 7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“Distinctive Key” / “Unique Key” ........................................................ 7 
`
`“Bibliography” ...................................................................................... 9 
`
`“Author” and “Audience” ..................................................................... 9 
`
`VII.  Summary of the Prior Art ........................................................................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Admitted Prior Art ....................................................................... 10 
`
`Caplan (Exhibit-1004) ......................................................................... 11 
`
`i
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`Kahn (Exhibit-1005)............................................................................ 13 
`
`D.  Gemteq (Exhibit-1006) / Gulati (Exhibit-1014) ................................. 14 
`
`VIII.  Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability ........................... 17 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Caplan in View of Kahn and the Knowledge of a
`POSA Renders Claims 8–17 Unpatentable for Obviousness
`Under § 103 ......................................................................................... 17 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`Obvious to Combine Caplan with Kahn ................................... 19 
`
`Claim 8, preamble: “[a] method for archiving reference
`material cited in a bibliography of a manuscript by an
`author of the manuscript” .......................................................... 21 
`
`iii.  Claim 8(a): “an author of a manuscript using a web site
`on the Internet as a reference for the manuscript” .................... 21 
`
`iv. 
`
`v. 
`
`Claim 8(b): “the author transmitting the address of the
`web[] site to a database connected to the Internet using a
`first communications device connected to the Internet” ........... 22 
`
`Claim 8(c): “the database obtaining a copy of the
`website from the Internet upon receiving the web site
`address from the author such that the copy of the web site
`obtained by the database is verbatim to the web site as on
`the Internet at the time the author transmitted the web site
`address to the database” ............................................................ 23 
`
`vi. 
`
`Claim 8(d): “associating a distinctive key to the copy of
`the web site” .............................................................................. 24 
`
`vii.  Claim 8(e): “storing at the database the copy of the web
`site with the distinctive key” ..................................................... 25 
`
`viii.  Claim 8(f): “the author citing the web site as being a
`reference for the manuscript by listing identification of
`the web site along with the distinctive key in the
`bibliography of the manuscript” ............................................... 26 
`
`ix. 
`
`Claim 8(g): “an audience of the manuscript obtaining the
`distinctive key from the bibliography of the manuscript” ........ 27 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`x. 
`
`xi. 
`
`Claim 8(h): “the audience transmitting the distinctive
`key to the database using a second communications
`device connected to the Internet in order to request the
`database for the copy of the web site” ...................................... 27 
`
`Claim 8(i): “the database transmitting a copy of the
`stored copy of the web site to the audience via the
`Internet and the second communications device in
`response to the database receiving the distinctive key
`from the audience such that the copy of the web site
`transmitted from the database to the audience is verbatim
`to the web site as on the Internet at the time the author
`transmitted the web site address to the database” ..................... 28 
`
`xii.  Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 29 
`
`xiii.  Claim 10 .................................................................................... 29 
`
`xiv.  Claim 11 .................................................................................... 30 
`
`xv.  Claim 12 .................................................................................... 31 
`
`xvi.  Claim 13 .................................................................................... 32 
`
`xvii.  Claims 14 and 15....................................................................... 32 
`
`xviii.  Claim 16 .................................................................................... 33 
`
`xix.  Claim 17 .................................................................................... 33 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: APA in View of Gemteq Further in View of Kahn
`Renders Claims 8–16 Unpatentable for Obviousness under
`§103 ..................................................................................................... 36 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`Obvious to Combine APA, Gemteq, and Kahn ........................ 37 
`
`Claim 8, preamble: “[a] method for archiving reference
`material cited in a bibliography of a manuscript by an
`author of the manuscript” .......................................................... 40 
`
`iii.  Claim 8(a): “an author of a manuscript using a web site
`on the Internet as a reference for the manuscript” .................... 40 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`iv. 
`
`v. 
`
`Claim 8(b): “the author transmitting the address of the
`web[] site to a database connected to the Internet using a
`first communications device connected to the Internet” ........... 40 
`
`Claim 8(c): “the database obtaining a copy of the
`website from the Internet upon receiving the web site
`address from the author such that the copy of the web site
`obtained by the database is verbatim to the web site as on
`the Internet at the time the author transmitted the web site
`address to the database” ............................................................ 42 
`
`vi. 
`
`Claim 8(d): “associating a distinctive key to the copy of
`the web site” .............................................................................. 42 
`
`vii.  Claim 8(e): “storing at the database the copy of the web
`site with the distinctive key” ..................................................... 43 
`
`viii.  Claim 8(f): “the author citing the web site as being a
`reference for the manuscript by listing identification of
`the web site along with the distinctive key in the
`bibliography of the manuscript” ............................................... 43 
`
`ix. 
`
`x. 
`
`xi. 
`
`Claim 8(g): “an audience of the manuscript obtaining the
`distinctive key from the bibliography of the manuscript” ........ 44 
`
`Claim 8(h): “the audience transmitting the distinctive key
`to the database using a second communications device
`connected to the Internet in order to request the database
`for the copy of the web site” ..................................................... 45 
`
`Claim 8(i): “the database transmitting a copy of the
`stored copy of the web site to the audience via the
`Internet and the second communications device in
`response to the database receiving the distinctive key
`from the audience such that the copy of the web site
`transmitted from the database to the audience is verbatim
`to the web site as on the Internet at the time the author
`transmitted the web site address to the database” ..................... 45 
`
`xii.  Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 46 
`
`xiii.  Claim 10 .................................................................................... 46 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`xiv.  Claim 11 .................................................................................... 46 
`
`xv.  Claim 12 .................................................................................... 47 
`
`xvi.  Claim 13 .................................................................................... 47 
`
`xvii.  Claims 14–16 ............................................................................ 47 
`
`C. 
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: Claims 1–7 and 18–24 Are Unpatentable for
`Obviousness under §103 For the Same Reasons as Claims 8–16 ....... 49 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`Claims 1-7 ................................................................................. 49 
`
`Claims 18–28 ............................................................................ 53 
`
`D. 
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Render Claims Nonobvious ........ 61 
`
`IX.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 61 
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Am. Megatrends, Inc. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2015-01515, 2017 WL 379369 (Jan. 19, 2017) ........................................... 19
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp.,
`IPR2016-1289, 2016 WL 8041326 (Dec. 27, 2016) .......................................... 10
`
`In re Inland Steel Co.,
`265 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 19, 36
`
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics,
`IPR2014-00309, 2014 WL 8331340 (Mar. 23, 2015) ........................................ 10
`
`Ex Parte Jingsong Wu,
`APPEAL 2015-005513, 2016 WL 5866799 (Sept. 28, 2016) ...................... 31, 60
`
`In re Johnston,
`435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 20
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Stambler,
`CBM2015-00044, 2016 WL 5632078 (July 6, 2016) .................................. 19-20
`
`Mobotix Corp. v. ComCam Int’l,
`IPR2015-00093, 2015 WL 1967802 ................................................................... 15
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. Copy Protection LLC,
`IPR2015-00921, 2015 WL 5608268 (Sept. 21, 2015) ............................ 12, 13, 14
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`659 F. App’x 627 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 38
`
`vi
`
`

`

`South-Tex Sys., LLC v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC,
`IPR2016-1351, 2017 WL 377871 ................................................................. 10, 31
`
`Ymax Corp. v. Focal IP, LLC,
`IPR2016-1256, 2017 WL 378663 (Jan. 4, 2017) ............................................... 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................ 3, 17, 36, 49
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit-
`1001
`
`Exhibit-
`1002
`
`Exhibit-
`1003
`
`Exhibit-
`1004
`
`Exhibit-
`1005
`
`Exhibit-
`1006
`
`Exhibit-
`1007
`
`Exhibit-
`1008
`
`Exhibit-
`1009
`
`Exhibit-
`1010
`
`Exhibit-
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,178,097 (“the ’097 Patent”).
`
`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,178,097.
`
`Priscilla Caplan and William Y Arms, Reference Linking for Journal
`Articles, D-LIB Magazine, Vol. 5 No. 7/8, July/August 1999
`(“Caplan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,135,646 (“Kahn”)
`
`PCT App. No. WO 00/39713 (“Gemteq”)
`
`Plaintiff Talsk Research Inc.’s Response to Defendant Evernote’s Rule
`12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, Case 1:16-
`cv-02167, Doc. No. 31 (filed November 28, 2016)
`
`D-Lib Magazine, About D-Lib Magazine,
`http://www.dlib.org/about.html (last visited Mar. 20, 2017)
`
`D-Lib Magazine (July/August 1999), D-Lib Magazine (July/Aug.
`1999), http://dlib.org/dlib/july99/07contents.html
`
`Susan E. Feldman, “It Was Here a Minute Ago!”: Archiving the Net,
`Searcher: the Magazine for Database Professionals, Oct. 1997
`
`Second Amended Complaint, Case 1:16-cv-02167, Doc. No. 24 (Filed
`Sept. 16, 2016)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`DESCRIPTION
`
`Declaration of William J. Arms
`
`International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), U.S. ISSN Center
`(International Standard Serial Number, Library of Congress),
`http://www.loc.gov.issn (last updated Aug. 2, 2016)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,924,827 (“Gulati”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/114,065
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/160,639
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/470,855
`
`Daniel Swinehart et al., WFS: A Simple Shared File System for a
`Distributed Environment, Proceedings of
`the Seventh ACM
`Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Dec. 1979, at 9-17
`
`Jeffrey A. Hoffer et al., Modern Database Management (6th ed. 2002)
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms (6th
`ed. 1997)
`
`Declaration of Laurence Lannom
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`Exhibit-
`1012
`
`Exhibit-
`1013
`
`Exhibit-
`1014
`
`Exhibit-
`1015
`
`Exhibit-
`1016
`
`Exhibit-
`1017
`
`Exhibit-
`1018
`
`Exhibit-
`1019
`
`Exhibit-
`1020
`
`Exhibit-
`1021
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Evernote
`
`Corporation (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1–
`
`28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,178,097 (the “’097 Patent,” Exhibit-1001), which issued on
`
`Feb. 13, 2007 and is assigned to Talsk Research, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).1
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner, Evernote Corporation, is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’097 Patent is the subject of the following litigation: Talsk Research,
`
`Inc. v. Evernote Corporation, No. 1:16-cv-02167 (N.D. Ill.). Evernote was served
`
`with the complaint on March 25, 2016.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Douglas J. Kline
`(Reg. No. 35,574)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`1 The ’097 Patent identifies the inventor as Srikrishna Talluri, with no assignment
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Robert Frederickson III
`(to seek pro hac vice admission)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`of the patent indicated. The USPTO’s Patent Assignment Database and Public
`
`Patent Application Information and Retrieval Database contain no recorded
`
`assignments of the ’097 Patent. In the co-pending district court litigation, Talsk
`
`has alleged that it is the assignee and owner of the ’097 Patent. (Ex. 1011 ¶10.)
`
`1
`
`

`

`(T): 617-570-1209
`(F): 617-523-1231
`dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`(T): 617-570-1947
`(F): 617-523-1231
`rfrederickson@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Adeel Haroon
`(Reg. No. 64,938)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`(T): 202-346-4000
`(F): 202-204-7180
`aharoon@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to Lead and Back-Up Counsel at the
`
`contact information above. Petitioner consents to electronic service at their email
`
`addresses.
`
`Fees
`
`E.
`We hereby authorize the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Attorney Deposit Account 506989.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Evernote certifies that the ’097 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Evernote is not barred or estopped from requesting this review.
`
`2
`
`

`

`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`AND STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)
`
`review the accompanying prior art and analysis, institute a trial for inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–28 of the ’097 Patent, and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1–28 are unpatentable over Caplan (Exhibit-1004) in
`
`view of Kahn (Exhibit-1005) and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSA”).
`
` Ground 2. Claims 1–16 and 18–28 are unpatentable over the Admitted
`
`Prior Art in view of Gemteq2 (Exhibit-1006) and in further view of Kahn.
`
`Section VIII sets forth, per 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2), the grounds under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103 on which the challenges to the claims are based. In accordance with
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(c), copies of the exhibits are filed herewith. In addition, this
`
`Petition is accompanied by the Declaration of Stephen Gray (Exhibit-1002). Mr.
`
`Gray is an expert in computer networking and distributed data management and
`
`architecture.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’097 PATENT
`A. Brief Description of the Alleged Invention
`The claims of the ’097 Patent are generally directed toward archiving
`
`reference material cited in a manuscript in a database connected to the Internet.
`
`
`2 Gemteq’s disclosure is also found in Gulati (Ex. 1014). See Section VII.D.
`
`3
`
`

`

`(Exhibit-1002 ¶¶ 32-40.) According to the ’097 Patent, “[a]uthors and researchers
`
`are now starting to cite information from websites in their manuscripts” and
`
`“[v]arious professional bodies have issued protocols for citing web content.”
`
`(Exhibit-1001, 1:48-50.) The Applicant believed, however, that “[a] problem
`
`citing websites as sources of information is that 1) websites are subject to frequent,
`
`invisible modifications and 2) may be moved to a new address or removed from
`
`the Internet without notice.” (Id., 1:58-61.) Thus, Applicant claimed that “in light
`
`of the affect the cited web based material might have had on a given manuscript, it
`
`becomes important for referees, editors, other researchers, and the audience of the
`
`manuscript to ascertain the credibility of the cited information available on those
`
`Internet websites (sources).” (Id., 2:41-45.)
`
`With reference to Figure 1 (reproduced below), the ’097 Patent describes
`
`methods and systems for archiving “source reference material” in a database
`
`connected to the Internet. (Exhibit-1002 ¶¶ 37-40.) An author creates a manuscript
`
`using a website as a reference. (Exhibit-1001, 10:50-51.) The author transmits the
`
`address of the website to a database connected to the Internet. (Id., 10:52-54.)
`
`The database obtains a copy of the website from the Internet. (Id., 10:55:60.) A
`
`“distinctive key” is “associat[ed] with the copy” of the web site. (Id., 3:39-41.)
`
`The database stores the distinctive key together with the copy of the website. (Id.,
`
`10:62-63.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`An audience of the manuscript later “obtain[s] the distinctive key from the
`
`bibliography of the manuscript.” (Id., 11:1-2.) The audience transmits the
`
`distinctive key to the database in order to request the copy of the website. (Id.,
`
`11:3-6.) In response, “the database transmit[s] a copy of the stored copy of the
`
`web site to the audience via the Internet.” (Id., 11:7-8.)
`
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ’097 Patent
`
`B.
` The application leading to the ’097 Patent was filed on November 13,
`
`2000, and does not claim priority to any earlier applications. The ’097 Patent
`
`issued on February 13, 2007.
`
`On March 23, 2004, the Examiner rejected the pending claims as anticipated
`
`and as obvious. (Exhibit-1003, 184, 486.) In response, Applicant substantially
`
`amended the pending claims and added claims 26-41. (Id., 201-212.) On
`
`December 9, 2004, the Examiner issued a final rejection of all claims. (Id., 226-
`
`27, 235.) On February 14, 2005, Applicant attempted to traverse the rejection,
`
`which the Examiner rejected. (Id., 271-273.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`In response to Applicant’s Appeal Brief, the Examiner reopened prosecution
`
`on November 23, 2005 and again rejected all pending claims. (Id., 392-95, 403.)
`
`On April 26, 2006, Applicant amended the pending claims. (Id., 415-426.) With
`
`respect to pending claim 13 (now, challenged claim 8), Applicant added limitations
`
`that require the use of a “distinctive key” to be associated with a copy of a the
`
`website sent to a database. (Id., 417-418.) In its Remarks, Applicant identified
`
`four “features” set forth in the then-pending claim 13 (now challenged claim 8):
`
`1.
` The database stores a copy of the web site as cited
`in the manuscript by the author of the manuscript and
`stores a distinctive key associated with the copy of the
`web site;
`2.
`The author lists in the manuscript the distinctive
`key;
`3.
`the manuscript obtains
`The audience of
`distinctive key from the manuscript; and
`4.
`The database transmits a copy of the stored copy
`of the web site to the audience upon receiving a request
`from the audience in which the request includes the
`distinctive key (and, as a result, the audience obtains a
`copy of the web site as the web site stood on the Internet
`at the time the author cited the web site in the
`manuscript).
`(Id., 429.) On July 27, 2006, the Examiner allowed all pending claims. (Id., 469-
`
`the
`
`472.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Summary of the Challenged Claims
`
`C.
`There is substantial duplication in the limitations across the challenged
`
`independent claims and dependent claims. This Petition is organized by first
`
`addressing claim 8 and its dependent claims in narrative text with corresponding
`
`citations to Exhibits and the Declaration of Stephen Gray. Claim charts are
`
`provided for the remaining challenged claims that map the evidence and argument
`
`presented to the remaining claims.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioners adopt Mr. Grays’s definition of a POSA: “[A] person with at
`
`least a Bachelor of Science degree (or the equivalent) in a relevant scientific or
`
`engineering field, such as computer engineering or computer science, or the
`
`equivalent knowledge gained through experience; and having at least one year of
`
`experience related the use of networking systems to access databases.” (Exhibit-
`
`1002 ¶ 30.)
`
`VI. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS
`For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner adopts the following
`
`constructions as the broadest reasonable interpretation of each term. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b)
`
`“Distinctive Key” / “Unique Key”
`
`A.
`The term “distinctive key” is recited in independent claims 1, 8, 17, and 18.
`
`The term “unique key” is recited in independent claims 19 and 23. The patent does
`
`7
`
`

`

`not distinguish between a “distinctive” and a “unique” key and uses these terms
`
`interchangeably. Petitioner construes these terms together. See Bancorp Servs.,
`
`L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The ’097 Patent explains that “the fluid, ever modifiable potential of the
`
`content of the website does not guarantee availability and true verification of the
`
`material actually used by the author.” (Exhibit-1001, 2:16-19.) As a result, the
`
`’097 Patent discloses a database that “assigns a permanent distinctive key (other
`
`than the URL identifying the website) to the website identification information….”
`
`(Exhibit-1001, 5:38-41.) Because a citation to a URL citation alone is not
`
`sufficiently distinct to identify a website that existed as of a given date, the
`
`specification is clear that the “distinct key” must be something “other than the
`
`URL identifying the website.” (Id., 6:34-36, 7:13-16.) In light of the passages of
`
`the specification quoted above, the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“distinctive key” and “unique key” is “an identifier (other than a URL
`
`identifying a website) of a copy of the stored reference.” (See Exhibit-1002 ¶¶
`
`42-43.) The Board should also interpret term to include URLs other than those that
`
`identify a public website as Patent Owner has alleged in the district court litigation
`
`that in the Evernote system, “[t]he distinctive or unique key is an Evernote created
`
`URL that links to another note within the Evernote Reference Reservation
`
`System.” (Exhibit-1011 ¶ 34.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`“Bibliography”
`
`B.
`The term “bibliography” is recited in independent claims 1 and 8, and is
`
`expressly defined by the ’097 Patent. (See Exhibit-1002 ¶ 44.) Accordingly, the
`
`Board should construe the term “bibliography” as “a list of all the material an
`
`author has consulted in preparing a manuscript, or a list of works that have
`
`been cited by an author, or a list of works to which an author has made a
`
`reference.” (Id.)
`
`“Author” and “Audience”
`
`C.
`The claims of the ’097 Patent require that certain steps be performed by
`
`“authors” of manuscripts and “audiences” of manuscripts. The ’097 Patent broadly
`
`refers to “authors” and “audiences” as users of communications devices that access
`
`the database over the Internet. (See, e.g., Exhibit-1001, 3:24-26 (author), 3:29-34
`
`(audience).) In the related district court litigation, Patent Owner has asserted,
`
`“Evernote presupposes the claimed ‘audience’ and ‘author’ must be wholly
`
`‘separate individuals.’ Nothing in the patent, however, precludes an ‘author’ who
`
`later retrieves an archived copy of a referenced website from also being the
`
`‘audience.’” (Exhibit-1007, 13 n.5.) Petitioner requests that the Board construe
`
`this term at least as broadly as the position taken by the Patent Owner in the district
`
`court litigation such that the “author” and “audience” can be the same user.
`
`(Exhibit-1002 ¶ 45.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`VII. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. The Admitted Prior Art
`Many of the limitations of the challenged claims are directed toward routine
`
`and conventional steps performed by “authors” and “audiences” of books and
`
`research papers that were admittedly well-known in the prior art before the
`
`priority date of the ’097 Patent (the “Admitted Prior Art” or “APA”).3 (See
`
`Exhibit-1002 ¶¶ 47-50.) The ’097 Patent admits that “[a]uthors of manuscripts and
`
`documents such as books and research papers frequently cite material such as
`
`articles and other books in a bibliography section.” (Exhibit-1001, 1:17-20.) The
`
`’097 Patent explains that prior art authors were known to have cited information
`
`from websites in their manuscripts and several professional bodies had issued
`
`
`3 The Board has confirmed that the APA of a patent can be used as part of an
`
`obviousness challenge in an inter partes review proceeding when combined with
`
`other prior art patents or printed publications. See Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-
`
`Gobain Performance Plastics, IPR2014-00309, 2014 WL 8331340, at *11 (Mar.
`
`23, 2015); see also South-Tex Sys., LLC v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-1351, 2017 WL 377871, at *4 - *8 (Jan. 13, 2017) (instituting Petition on
`
`grounds that include APA); Ymax Corp. v. Focal IP, LLC, IPR2016-1256, 2017
`
`WL 378663, at *7 (Jan. 4, 2017) (same); Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp.,
`
`IPR2016-1289, 2016 WL 8041326, at *5-*6 (Dec. 27, 2016) (same).
`
`10
`
`

`

`protocols for citing web content. (Id., 1:48-52.) The ’097 Patent also admits that
`
`prior art authors sometimes cited e-mail personal communications. (Id., 2:20-29.)
`
`
`
`The ’097 Patent further explains how prior art bibliographies “become[] a
`
`resource of information for other researchers in the field.” (Id., 2:2-3.)
`
`Accordingly, the ’097 Patent admits that “[r]eferees of research papers, editors,
`
`other researchers and the audience of the manuscript need to review/verify the
`
`information taken from the cited references.” (Id., 2:4-6.)
`
`B. Caplan (Exhibit-1004)
`The article Reference Linking for Journal Articles was written by Priscilla
`
`
`
`Caplan and William Y. Arms, and was published in the July/August 1999 edition
`
`of the online magazine D-Lib Magazine (Exhibit-1004, “Caplan”). (Exhibit-1002
`
`¶ 51.) “D-Lib Magazine is an electronic publication with a focus on digital library
`
`research and development, including new technologies, applications, and
`
`contextual social and economic issues.” (Exhibit-1008, 1.) Caplan was identified
`
`as being the first story in the July/August 1999 edition of the magazine, which
`
`bears indicia that it was released in July/August 1999. (Exhibit-1009, 1.)
`
`Similarly, Caplan bears an eight-digit “International Standard Serial Number”
`
`(“ISSN”) and a copyright date of 1999. (Exhibit-1004, 1, 18.) An ISSN is a
`
`widely recognized standard identifier for published serials. (See Ex.1013).
`
`11
`
`

`

`In addition, attached as Exhibits 1012 and 1021 are declarations from one of
`
`Caplan’s authors and the editor of D-Lib Magazine, confirming that Caplan was
`
`publicly available more than one year before the filing date of the ’097 Patent.
`
`(See Exhibit-1002 ¶¶ 52-54.) Accordingly, Caplan qualifies as prior art under
`
`§102(b) (pre-AIA). See Netflix, Inc. v. Copy Protection LLC, IPR2015-00921,
`
`2015 WL 5608268, at *10 (Sept. 21, 2015) (finding that date on face of D-Lib
`
`Magazine article, combined with other indicia such as ISSN, was “sufficiently
`
`persua[sive]” evidence of public availability as of that date). Caplan was not
`
`considered by the Patent Office during prosecution of the ’097 Patent.
`
`Caplan describes “reference linking, particularly in the important area of
`
`links to journal articles” and includes a discussion of the use of links and citations
`
`reference material using, among other things, website addresses. (Exhibit-1004, 1-
`
`2; Exhibit-1002 ¶¶ 55-56.) Caplan identifies that citations that use URL links
`
`“suffer from several disadvantages” because “[s]ince URLs reference a specific
`
`location, they are vulnerable to changes or poor management of the system at that
`
`location.” (Id., 2.) Accordingly, Caplan teaches the need to use “persistent
`
`identifiers” in addition to URLs in order to ensu