`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,414,199
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`FEE AUTHORIZATION ................................................................................ 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 3
`
`VI. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’199 Patent .................................................................. 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ................................................ 8
`
`A. Ground 1: Blegen and Monteverde Render Obvious Claims 1-2 ......... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Blegen (Ex. 1004) .................................................. 8
`
`Overview of Monteverde (Ex. 1005) .......................................... 9
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 11
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 29
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Blegen, Monteverde, and Schmidt Render Obvious
`Claims 3-5 ........................................................................................... 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Schmidt (Ex. 1006) .............................................. 30
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 31
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 33
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 39
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Charlebois and Gillies Render Obvious Claims 1-5 ......... 41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Overview of Charlebois (Ex. 1007) .......................................... 41
`
`Overview of Gillies (Ex. 1008) ................................................. 43
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 44
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 63
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 65
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 66
`
`D. Ground 4: Charlebois, Gillies, and Froloff Render Obvious
`Claims 1-5 ........................................................................................... 68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Froloff (Ex. 1009) ................................................ 68
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................. 69
`
`Claims 1-5 ................................................................................. 70
`
`IX. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT ......................... 71
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,414,199 (the “’199 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gabriel Robins
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0082397 (“Blegen”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0259705 (“Monteverde”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0226554 (“Schmidt”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0125321 (“Charlebois”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0151882 (“Gillies”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0089465 (“Froloff”)
`
`Chawla, Robins, and Zhang, “Object Localization Using
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`RFID,” IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive
`
`Computing - ISWPC 2010, Italy, May 2010, pp. 301-306
`
`1011
`
`Chawla, Robins, and Zhang, “Efficient RFID-Based Mobile
`
`Object Localization,” IEEE International Conference on
`
`Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
`
`Communications, Canada, October, 2010, pp. 683-690
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`Chawla and Robins, “An RFID-based object localisation
`
`1012
`
`framework,” Int. J. Radio Frequency Identification Technology
`
`and Applications, Vol. 3, 2011
`
`1013
`
`Strang et al., “Location- and Context-Awareness,” First
`
`International Workshop on Location- and Context-Awareness,
`
`Germany, May 2005
`
`1014
`
` Hazas et al, “Location- and Context-Awareness,” Second
`
`International Workshop on Location- and Context-Awareness,
`
`Ireland, May 2006
`
`1015
`
`Hightower et al., “Location- and Context-Awareness,” Third
`
`International Workshop on Location- and Context-Awareness,
`
`Ireland, Sep. 2007
`
`1016
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gabriel Robins
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-5
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,414,199 (the “’199 Patent”; Ex. 1001), assigned to Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg S.A. (“Patent Owner”). This Petition presents several non-
`
`cumulative grounds of invalidity that were not considered during prosecution.
`
`These grounds are each likely to prevail, and this Petition, accordingly, should be
`
`granted on all grounds and the challenged claims should be cancelled.
`
`The ’199 Patent relates to “methods of and systems for delivery of
`
`information” such as “sending a promotion or advertisement to the user device.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The system delivers advertisement information in response to
`
`predicting that the likelihood of a user visiting a location exceeds a predetermined
`
`threshold. Id., Abstract, 1:37-46. The ’199 Patent issued because the prior art
`
`considered during prosecution did not disclose delivering information to user
`
`devices based on a prediction of locations that the user will visit in the future. Ex.
`
`1002, 22-24. Each of the prior art references relied on in this Petition teaches this
`
`feature and was not considered during prosecution.1 For reasons set forth in this
`
`Petition, all claims of the ’199 Patent are obvious over the prior art.
`
`
`1 This technology was well known. In the Technological Background section of
`
`his declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶33-40), Dr. Gabriel Robins describes other references,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Apple Inc.
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the ’199 Patent against
`
`Petitioner in Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-258-JRG (E.D.
`
`Texas).
`
`Lead Counsel: Xin-Yi (Vincent) Zhou (Reg. No. 63,366)
`
`Backup Counsel: Sina S. Aria (Reg. No. 69,490) and Laura A. Bayne (Reg.
`
`No. 72,420). In addition, Petitioner plans to file a motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission for Luann L. Simmons.
`
`Service Information: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email to
`
`APPLEUNILOCIPR@OMM.COM. Please address all correspondence to lead and
`
`backup counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 South Hope Street, Los Angeles,
`
`California 90071 (Telephone: 213-430-6000; Fax: 213-430-6407), with courtesy
`
`copies to the email address identified above.
`
`III. FEE AUTHORIZATION
`The PTO is authorized to charge $23,000 to Deposit Account No. 50-0639
`
`for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R § 42.15(a) and any other fees.
`
`
`published as early as 2005, that disclose targeted advertising based on location
`
`prediction. Exs. 1010-1016.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’199 Patent is available for IPR, and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds presented.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests review and cancellation of Claims 1-5 of the
`
`’199 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on the following grounds:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent Pubs. 2010/0082397 (“Blegen”) and 2012/0259704
`
` (“Monteverde”) render obvious Claims 1 and 2;
`
`2.
`
`Blegen, Monteverde, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2012/0226554 (“Schmidt”)
`
`render obvious Claims 3-5;
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent Pubs. 2009/0125321 (“Charlebois”) and 2010/0151882
`
`(“Gillies”) render obvious Claims 1-5; and
`
`4.
`
`Charlebois, Gillies, and U.S. Patent Pub. 2012/0089465 (“Froloff”)
`
`render obvious Claims 1-5.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the ’199 Patent
`The ’199 Patent, titled “Predictive Delivery of Information Based on Device
`
`History,” discloses a system for delivering advertisement information to user
`
`devices. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The system “gathers location information from the
`
`user devices to collect location histories of the devices and uses the location
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`histories to periodically predict future locations of the devices.” Id., 1:30-36. For
`
`example, as shown in Figure 1, “a server 106 … sends information to user devices
`
`102A-D” based on “predicted future locations of those devices.” Id., 3:12-16.
`
` ’199 Patent, Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`“A number of actions,” such as sending advertisement information, “are
`
`associated with one or more predetermined locations, a predetermined maximum
`
`amount of time, and a predetermined likelihood.” Id., 1:37-39. When a server
`
`(e.g., server 106 in Fig. 1) “determines that a given user device [e.g., user device
`
`102A] is likely to be in one of the predetermined locations within the
`
`predetermined maximum amount of time with at least the predetermined minimum
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`likelihood, the server performs the associated acts with respect to the user device.”
`
`Id., 1:40-44.
`
`In an example described in the specification, the predetermined locations
`
`correspond to locations of stores, the predetermined maximum amount of time is
`
`one hour, the predetermined likelihood is 50%, and the action is delivery of
`
`advertisement information. Id., 1:52-56. If the system predicts there is more than
`
`a 50% probability that a user device will be at or around any of the store locations
`
`within an hour, it delivers the corresponding advertisement to the user device. Id.
`
`In another example, the predetermined locations are locations of restaurants,
`
`and the predetermined maximum amount of time is “lunch time on weekdays”
`
`from “11:30 am to 2:00 pm”—which specifies the maximum amount of time
`
`during which a lunch offer will be sent to the user device. Id., 2:17-27.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’119 Patent issued from Application No. 14/188,063, filed on February
`
`24, 2014. Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`On December 18, 2014, the Examiner issued an Office Action rejecting
`
`Claim 1-5 over prior art. Ex. 1002, 117. On March 17, 2015, the Applicant
`
`responded by amending Claims 1-5 to include language identical to the issued
`
`claims. Id., 88-89. The Applicant argued that the prior art of record does not
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`disclose delivery of information in response to predictions based on a
`
`“predetermined likelihood.” Id., 93.
`
`On March 31, 2015, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action, rejecting
`
`Claims 1-5 as being obvious over prior art directed to selecting and sending
`
`advertisements based on “user interests.” Id., 72. The Examiner stated that
`
`advertisement delivery based on “user interests” is equivalent to delivery of
`
`information based on a “predetermined likelihood,” as recited in the claims. Id.
`
`The Applicant appealed the Examiner’s rejections to the PTAB, arguing that
`
`“‘likelihood’ has nothing to do with what a person subjectively likes.” Id., 51. In
`
`support, the Applicant submitted several dictionary definitions of “likelihood,”
`
`arguing that “all of [the definitions] pertain to probability and none of which
`
`pertain to what a person subjectively likes.” Id., 51-52.
`
`In a June 1, 2016 decision, the Board reversed the Examiner’s rejections,
`
`finding that the prior art cited by the Examiner did not disclose the “predetermined
`
`likelihood” limitation. Id., 23-24. The Board noted that under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, “the ‘predetermined likelihood’ refers to the
`
`probability or the percentage likelihood that a mobile device will be at a predicted
`
`location in the future.” Id., 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:22-28). The Examiner issued a
`
`Notice of Allowability on June 30, 2016. Ex. 1002, 6-8.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`None of the prior art references analyzed in this Petition were cited during
`
`prosecution.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’199 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art around the filing of the ’199 Patent (hereafter, a “POSITA”) would have been
`
`someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent, and at least
`
`two years of experience or research in software engineering, and/or computer
`
`systems. Ex. 1003, ¶¶29-31.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because the ’199 Patent will not expire during this proceeding, Petitioner
`
`interprets its claims based on their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`During prosecution, the Board held that the term “predetermined likelihood”
`
`refers to “the probability or the percentage likelihood that a mobile device will be
`
`at a predicted location in the future.” Ex. 1002, 23. This Petition analyzes
`
`“predetermined likelihood” under both the Board’s interpretation and the term’s
`
`plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Blegen and Monteverde Render Obvious Claims 1-2
`1. Overview of Blegen (Ex. 1004)
`Blegen, titled “Predictive Geo-Temporal Advertisement Targeting,” was
`
`published on April 1, 2010. Ex. 1004, Cover. Blegen is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b).
`
`Blegen discloses a system “for targeting advertisements to users of mobile
`
`devices based on geo-temporal models.” Id., Abstract. The geo-temporal models
`
`use “time-stamped location information” of mobile devices gathered over time “to
`
`estimate probabilities associated with obtaining accurate predictions ….” Id.,
`
`[0048]; see also [0060], [0079]. For example, the system uses the “geo-temporal
`
`model … for predicting geographical locations in which a mobile device [] will be
`
`located at specified time periods.” Id., [0067]; [0079].
`
`Each prediction is associated with a confidence level that may be expressed
`
`as a percentage. Id., [0068]. For example, “the confidence level threshold” for a
`
`given advertisement is set to 80%. Id., [0067]. When the confidence level
`
`associated with a user device’s predicted location during a specified time period
`
`(e.g., “afternoon” of “Sep. 26, 2008”) exceeds that threshold, an advertisement
`
`relating to the predicted location is delivered to the user device. Id., [0068].
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`2. Overview of Monteverde (Ex. 1005)
`Monteverde, titled “Time-Sensitive and Location-Based Commercial Offer
`
`System,” was filed on November 9, 2011, and was published on October 11, 2012.
`
`Ex. 1005, Cover. Monteverde is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and
`
`102(e).
`
`Monteverde discloses a system for “notify[ing] a user of a commercial offer”
`
`that is time-sensitive and location-specific. Id., Abstract, [0007]. As shown in
`
`Figure 10, the system develops a record of the user’s location history in steps
`
`S305, S310 and S1005. Id., [0075]. In step S1010, the system analyzes that
`
`location history to determine a “probability score” indicating the likelihood that the
`
`user will be in a geographical area “during an offer period” associated with a
`
`commercial offer. Id., [0076]. If the probability score exceeds a “predetermined
`
`threshold” (S1015), the system transmits the offer to the user device (S1020). Id.,
`
`[0076]-[0077].
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
` Monteverde, Fig. 10 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Monteverde discloses transmitting offers to “potential customers” that meet
`
`the location-, time-, and likelihood-based criteria for the offer. Id., [0008]. For
`
`example, when the system predicts a “probability score above a predetermined
`
`threshold” indicating that the user “is likely to pass by [a] restaurant in the future
`
`between 8:00 am and 9:00 am,” it “transmit[s] commercial offers for breakfast or
`
`coffee discounts” to the user’s device. Id., [0076]-[0077], Fig. 10 (S1015, S1020).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`3.
`Blegen and Monteverde are in the same field—directed advertising to
`
`mobile devices. Ex. 1004, Abstract; Ex. 1005, Abstract, Fig. 10. They disclose the
`
`same approach—forming a time-stamped location history of the user device,
`
`predicting locations of the user, and targeting advertisements based on the
`
`predicted locations. Ex. 1004, Abstract, [0079]; Ex. 1005, [0077], Fig. 10. Given
`
`that Blegen and Monteverde are in a common field of endeavor and disclose
`
`similar time- and location-based targeted advertising systems, a POSITA would
`
`have recognized that Monteverde’s targeted advertising features could be added to
`
`and would benefit Blegen’s system. Ex. 1003, ¶66. Therefore, a POSITA would
`
`have found the combination of the references to be an obvious combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. Id.
`
`For the reasons set forth below for Element [1a], Blegen discloses or
`
`suggests retrieving advertisement information associated with a specified time
`
`period, and delivering the advertisement in response to predicting that a user will
`
`arrive at a location within the specified time period. Ex. 1004, [0044], Fig. 6; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶67-73. But to the extent Patent Owner argues that Blegen does not
`
`disclose this feature, a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Blegen to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`incorporate Monteverde’s specification of a maximum time window (e.g., an “offer
`
`period”) for each advertisement. Id., ¶¶74-77.
`
`Blegen and Monteverde both disclose the benefits of allowing the advertiser
`
`to specify time attributes of advertisements to enhance the relevance of
`
`advertisements. Ex. 1004, [0014]; Ex. 1005, [0005], [0078]-[0079]. Accordingly,
`
`it would have been obvious to modify Blegen in view of Monteverde to allow the
`
`advertiser to specify a maximum amount of time (e.g., an “offer period”) for each
`
`advertisement stored in the server database. Ex. 1005, [0025], [0031], [0045],
`
`[0076]; Ex. 1003, ¶77. Monteverde explains the benefit of this modification: it
`
`allows the server to distribute only advertisements that are “most relevant or
`
`available” based on the predicted destination of the user and the predicted time
`
`period of arrival. Id.; Ex. 1005, [0069]; see also [0005], [0078], [0079]. By
`
`targeting the advertisement to users who are likely to be at the location within the
`
`“offer period,” the advertisement’s relevance and value are enhanced. Id. Thus, to
`
`the extent Blegen does not disclose or suggest Element [1a.ii], a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious to modify Blegen to incorporate Monteverde’s disclosure of
`
`a maximum time window (e.g., an “offer period”) for each advertisement to ensure
`
`that the advertisements is sent when a user is predicted to be at the predetermined
`
`locations when the offer is valid. Ex. 1003, ¶¶74-77.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1
`a)
`
`Preamble: “A method for delivering information to two
`or more user devices, the method comprising:”
`
`Blegen discloses a method for delivering advertisement information to user
`
`devices. Ex. 1004, Abstract, [0070]. The disclosed method “provides
`
`advertisements to mobile devices” over a network. Id., [0070], Fig. 3.
`
`Blegen discloses delivering information to two or more user devices. Id.,
`
`Fig. 2, [0023]. As shown in Figure 2, a content provider 212 “facilitate[s]
`
`targeting of advertisements to a number of mobile devices 216” over network 222
`
`and mobile network 214. Id.
`
`Blegen, Fig. 2 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`Therefore, Blegen discloses the preamble of Claim 1. Ex. 1003, ¶¶58-59.
`
`Monteverde also discloses “provid[ing]” or “transmitt[ing]” “commercial
`
`offers” to each “user device 100” of multiple “potential customers.” Ex. 1005,
`
`[0007]-[0008]. Thus, Monteverde also discloses the preamble of Claim 1. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶60-61.
`
`b)
`
`Element [1a]: “retrieving the information from one or
`more data records that associate the information with
`[1a.i] one or more predetermined locations, [1a.ii] a
`predetermined maximum amount of time, [1a.iii] a
`predetermined likelihood, and [1a.iv] one or more
`predetermined actions; and”
`
`Blegen discloses retrieving advertisement information from one or more data
`
`records (e.g., “ad database 227”) that store “attributes associated with an
`
`advertisement that indicate situations in which the advertisement should be
`
`provided.” Ex. 1004, [0044]; see also [0036] (“[A]d database 227 is a relational
`
`database that includes advertisement identifiers that identify advertisements stored
`
`in storage 225 as well as data associated with various attributes corresponding to
`
`the advertisement identifiers. … [A]n attribute or attributes can represent
`
`information that indicates a geographical region wherein the advertisement
`
`corresponding to the associated advertisement identifier should be presented.”),
`
`Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`
`Blegen, Fig. 2 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Blegen discloses that the attributes associated with advertisement
`
`information allow the system to search for and select advertisements with locations
`
`and time attributes that correspond to the predicted locations that a user will be in
`
`the future and times of arrival at the predicted locations. Id., [0071] (“[A]d
`
`selection component 322 receives information from prediction component 346 that
`
`indicates locations, times, and/or other information relevant to targeting
`
`advertisement to a user. Based on the information received, ad selection
`
`component 322 can search ad store 324 such as by querying an index associated
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`therewith, and retrieve advertisements that are appropriate for presentation to the
`
`user at the specified and/or predicted times, locations, and the like.”). Thus,
`
`Blegen discloses retrieving information from one or more data records that
`
`associate the information with the parameters discussed below. Ex. 1003, ¶¶62-63.
`
`Element [1a.i]: Blegen discloses retrieving advertisement information from
`
`“ad database 227” that associates the information with one or more predetermined
`
`locations. Ex. 1004, [0036] (“[A]n attribute or attributes can represent information
`
`that indicates a geographical region wherein the advertisement corresponding to
`
`the associated advertisement identifier should be presented.”), [0037] (“[A]n
`
`advertisement provider such as ad source 224 can specify particular geographical
`
`regions in which an ad should be presented to a user. That way, for example, a
`
`local sandwich shop can specify that an advertisement related thereto is presented
`
`to users when the users are within a certain distance from the shop.”); [0071].
`
`Element [1a.ii]: Blegen also discloses that one of the “conditions”
`
`associated with advertisement information can be “a specified time period.” Ex.
`
`1004, [0039] (“Specified conditions can include, for example, the occurrence of a
`
`specified time period, a user-interaction with mobile device 216, and the like.”);
`
`see also [0004]-[0005]. Blegen teaches that an “ad selection component 322 can
`
`search ad store 324” to “retrieve advertisement” information “appropriate for
`
`presentation to the user at the specified and/or predicted times, locations, and the
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`like.” Id., [0071] (emphasis added). For example, the specified time period can be
`
`“afternoon” on a certain date, such as “Sep. 26, 2008.” Id., [0068]; see also
`
`[0003]-[0005], [0067].
`
`Blegen discloses that the advertisement server can use the predicted “geo-
`
`temporal” information (e.g., the predicted time period of arrival) to query and
`
`retrieve advertisements in the database with matching specified time periods and
`
`locations. Id., [0044] (“Ad server 226 can query the index using geo-temporal
`
`targeting information in the query definition to select appropriate advertisements to
`
`present to users at particular times and in specified geographic locations.”).
`
`Blegen teaches that the advertisement is sent to the user when the user is predicted
`
`to be at the location within the specific time period. Id., [0085]-[0086], [0014],
`
`[0048]. A POSITA would have understood that an “afternoon” on a future date—
`
`an example of a time period associated with an advertisement described in Blegen
`
`(id., [0067]-[0068])—is a “predetermined maximum amount of time” because it
`
`specifies the maximum time window for the predicted arrival of the user at a
`
`predetermined location to trigger an advertisement. Ex. 1003, ¶70. Further, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that, for example, the specified time period in
`
`Blegen can be a predetermined maximum amount of time during which goods or
`
`services associated with the advertisement are available. Id.; Ex. 1004, [0044],
`
`[0071], [0080]-[0084], Fig. 5. Therefore, Blegen discloses associating
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`advertisement information with a predetermined location and a predetermined
`
`maximum amount of time. Ex. 1003, ¶¶67-70.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner argues that Blegen does not explicitly disclose
`
`Element [1a.ii], this limitation is obvious to a POSITA. Ex. 1003, ¶¶71-73.
`
`Blegen’s “ad database 227” stores “attributes associated with an
`
`advertisement that indicate situations in which the advertisement should be
`
`provided.” Ex. 1004, [0044]. To identify an appropriate situation for providing an
`
`advertisement, the system queries the database using a specified time period as a
`
`parameter. Id., [0044] (“Ad server 226 can query the index using geo-temporal
`
`targeting information in the query definition to select appropriate advertisements to
`
`present to users at particular times and in specified geographic locations.”); [0071]
`
`(“[A]d selection component 322 can search ad store 324 such as by querying an
`
`index associated therewith, and retrieve advertisements that are appropriate for
`
`presentation to the user at the specified and/or predicted times, locations, and the
`
`like.”); see also Fig. 5 (Steps 516-522 and 526), [0080]-[0084]. A POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious to associate advertisements with time attributes, such as a
`
`predetermined maximum amount of time, to facilitate Blegen’s querying of the ad
`
`database based on the specified time period. Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶¶71-73.
`
`Element [1a.iii]: Blegen discloses retrieving advertisement information
`
`from one or more data records that associate the advertisement information with a
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`predetermined likelihood, as expressed by a “confidence level threshold.” Ex.
`
`1004, [0067].
`
`Blegen discloses that a “confidence level” is “an index or attribute that
`
`provides information regarding how well the user meets a set of criteria established
`
`by an advertisement provider.” Id., [0067]. Accordingly, the confidence level
`
`indicates a degree of certainty in prediction that can be expressed as a percentage
`
`or probability. Id. (defining a “confidence level” of “80%”). Blegen discloses
`
`“select[ing]” a “predetermined threshold,” and comparing the level of certainty of
`
`prediction to the “selected” “predetermined threshold.” Id. (“[T]he predetermined
`
`threshold [for the confidence level] is selected such that advertising expenditures
`
`are maximized with respect to user exposure to the advertisements.”); [0068].
`
`A POSITA would have understood from Blegen’s disclosure that the
`
`“selected” confidence level threshold is one of the attributes associated with the
`
`advertisement information stored in the database. Id.; see also id., [0036]; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶79-80. To the extent this limitation requires storing data regarding the
`
`predetermined threshold in a database, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`store the confidence level threshold as an attribute associated with the
`
`advertisement. Id. For example, Blegen teaches that “attributes” can be associated
`
`with a given advertisement in “a relational database” such that they “indicate
`
`situations in which the advertisement should be provided.” Id.; Ex. 1004, [0036],
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`[0044]. It would have been obvious to store information relating to the
`
`predetermined confidence threshold as part of such “attributes” in the “relational
`
`database.” Id.
`
`In the example shown in Figure 6, the system determines a “first confidence
`
`level” associated with a prediction that a user device will be at a predetermined
`
`location within a specified time period. Ex. 1004, Fig. 6 (Steps 610 and 612),
`
`[0086], [0067]. This “first confidence level” refers to the probability that a mobile
`
`device will be at a predicted location in the future. Ex. 1003, ¶¶80-81. In response
`
`to a prediction that the “first confidence level” exceeds a selected “first
`
`predetermined threshold” (i.e., a predetermined likelihood) associated with an
`
`advertisement, the advertisement is provided for presentation. Ex. 1004, Fig. 6
`
`(Steps 614 and 620); see also [0085]-[0086].
`
`Blegen, Fig. 6 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 9,414,199
`Element [1a.iv]: Blegen discloses associating the advertisement information
`
`with one or more predetermined actions (e.g., selection and delivery of the
`
`advertisement). Ex. 1004, [0071] (“ad selection component 322 can search ad
`
`store 324” to “retrieve advertisement” information “appropriate for presentation to
`
`the user at the specified and/or predicted times, locations, and the like”), Figs. 2-3.
`
`Specifically, Blegen’s “ad database 227” stores “attributes associated with an
`
`advertisement that indicate situations in which the advertisement should be
`
`provided.” Id., [0044] (emphasis added).
`
`A POSITA would have understood from Blegen that the predetermined
`
`action (e.g., delivery/presentation or transmission) is associated with the
`
`advertisement information. Id., [0036]; E