Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR SERVING
`COMMERCE INFORMATION OF AN OUTSOURCE PROVIDER IN
`CONNECTION WITH HOST WEB PAGES OFFERING COMMERCIAL
`OPPORTUNITIES
`
`Issue Date May 2, 2017
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 (‘876 Patent)
`Declaration of Michael Shamos
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,330,575 (Moore)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,504 (Arnold)
`Declaration of Nathaniel Borenstein
`“Selling Online with First Virtual,” by Pete Loshin (Published 1996)
`First Virtual Seller Programs Webpage (June 1997)
`First Virtual InfoHaus Guide Webpages (June 1997)
`First Virtual InfoHaus HelpMeister (June 1997)
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 773 F.3d 1245 (2014)
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`0013987, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,374, U.S. Patent No.
`6,993,572, April 16, 2010
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`0013988, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,375, U.S. Patent No.
`6,629,135, April 16, 2010
`Reserved
`Definition of “commission” - The American Heritage Collegiate
`Dictionary 280 (Robert B. Costello et al. eds., 3rd ed. 1997)
`Definition of “commission” - Webster’s New World Basic Dictionary
`of American English 167-168 (Michael Agnes et al. eds., 1998)
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ........................... 4
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 4
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 5
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ................................................................................ 5
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)) ......................................................................................... 5
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ................ 5
`1.
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and
`Available as Prior Art ................................................................. 6
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative ................................. 6
`2.
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................ 7
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 7
`1.
`Field of Technology .................................................................... 7
`2.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................... 8
`3.
`The ’876 Patent ........................................................................... 8
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................... 9
`1.
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17) ................................... 9
`2.
`“host” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16) ........................................... 10
`3.
`“commerce object” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17,
`19) ............................................................................................. 10
`“commission” (Claims 4, 14) ................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`and 103 ................................................................................................ 11
`1.
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are anticipated by
`Loshin ........................................................................................ 11
`(a)
`Summary of Loshin ........................................................ 11
`(b) Claim 1 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 14
`(c) Claim 2 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 24
`(d) Claim 3 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 26
`(e) Claim 4 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 27
`(f) Claim 5 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 28
`(g) Claim 7 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 29
`(h) Claim 8 is anticipated by Loshin .................................... 32
`(i)
`Claim 11 is anticipated by Loshin .................................. 33
`(j)
`Claim 12 is anticipated by Loshin .................................. 33
`(k) Claim 13 is anticipated by Loshin .................................. 33
`(l)
`Claim 16 is anticipated by Loshin .................................. 34
`(m) Claim 17 is anticipated by Loshin .................................. 34
`(n) Claim 18 is anticipated by Loshin .................................. 34
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are obvious in view of
`Loshin and the InfoHaus Documents ........................................ 34
`(a)
`Summary of the InfoHaus Documents ........................... 35
`(b) Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the
`InfoHaus Documents ...................................................... 37
`(c) Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the
`InfoHaus Documents ...................................................... 43
`(d) Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the
`InfoHaus Documents ...................................................... 44
`(e) Claim 16 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the
`InfoHaus Documents ...................................................... 45
`(f) Claim 17 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the
`InfoHaus Documents ...................................................... 45
`Ground 3: The Challenged Claims are obvious in view of
`Loshin and Moore ..................................................................... 45
`(a)
`Summary of Moore ......................................................... 46
`(b) Motivation to Combine Loshin and Moore .................... 47
`(c) Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Loshin
`in view of Moore ............................................................ 48
`
`3.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`(i)
`
`(d) Claim 2 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 59
`(e) Claim 3 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 60
`(f) Claim 4 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 62
`(g) Claim 5 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 63
`(h) Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 64
`Claim 8 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 65
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 66
`(k) Claim 12 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 66
`Claim 13 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 66
`(m) Claim 14 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 67
`(n) Claim 15 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 67
`(o) Claim 17 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 67
`(p) Claim 18 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of
`Moore .............................................................................. 67
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`
`(j)
`
`(l)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Booking.com B.V.,
`Civil Action No. 17-499(D. Del. 2017) ................................................................ 1
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (2014) ............................................................................................ 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
`954 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .................................................................... 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 17-498 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 1
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-501 (D. Del. 2018) ............................................................... 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. TicketNetwork, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-500 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 1
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Travel Holdings, Inc., and Tourico Holidays,
`Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-502 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 2
`Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-00482 ..................................................................................................... 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 519
`35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 .......................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a) .................................................................................... 67
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......................................................................................... 5, 34, 44
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`California Rules of Court
`Rule 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................................... 10
`Other Authorities
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 69
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 79
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................................................................................... 68
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 9
`U.S. Patent 9,043,228................................................................................................. 5
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135 ...................................................................................... 3, 5
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572 .............................................................................. 2, 3, 4, 5
`U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 .................................................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825 .................................................................................. 1, 2, 5
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228 ...................................................................................... 1, 2
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 .................................................................................passim
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Petitioners
`
`request inter partes review of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-18 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 (the “’876 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Shopify, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`B.
`The following matters may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`(1) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com, LLC, Civil Action No. 17-498
`
`(D. Del. 2017), which involves U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 (the “’399 Patent”); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,515,825 (the “’825 Patent”), which is a continuation of the ’399
`
`Patent; U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228 (the “’228 Patent”), which is a continuation of
`
`the ’825 Patent; and U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876, which is a continuation of the ’228
`
`Patent.
`
`(2) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Booking.com B.V., Civil Action No. 17-499(D.
`
`Del. 2017), which involves the ’399 Patent; the ’825 Patent; the ’228 Patent; and
`
`the ’876 Patent.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`(3) DDR Holdings, LLC v. TicketNetwork, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-500
`
`(D. Del. 2017), which involves the ’399 Patent; the ’825 Patent; the ’228 Patent;
`
`and the ’876 Patent.
`
`(4) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Travel Holdings, Inc., and Tourico Holidays,
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 17-502 (D. Del. 2017), which involves the ’399 Patent; the
`
`’825 Patent; the ’228 Patent; and the ’876 Patent.
`
`(5) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-501 (D. Del.
`
`2018), which involves patents related to the ’399 Patent: the ’825 Patent; the ’228
`
`Patent; and the ’876 Patent.
`
`(6) DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 954 F.Supp.2d 509
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2013), which involved claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572 (the ’572
`
`Patent) and the ’399 Patent, which is a continuation of the ’572 Patent.
`
`(7) DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 773 F.3d 1245
`
`(2014), was an appeal of the decision of the district court case (identified at (6)
`
`above). In this case, the Federal Circuit found that claims of the ’572 Patent were
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the Digital River Secure Sales System (the
`
`“DR SSS”) and that the claims of the ‘399 Patent were patent eligible under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. The claims of the ’572 Patent are similar to the claims of the ‘876
`
`Patent. Both claims require an outsource provider which stores data associated
`
`with visual elements used to construct a Web page (e.g., the composite web page
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`of Claim 13 of the ‘572 Patent and Claim 1 of the ‘876 Patent) in response to
`
`activation of a link on a Web page (e.g., the host Web page of Claim 13 of the ’572
`
`Patent and the source Web page in Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent), where the
`
`constructed Web page maintains visually perceptible elements of the Web page on
`
`which the link was activated. This new page displays information related to a
`
`commerce object associated with the activated link and for sale from a third party
`
`merchant.
`
`The Federal Circuit declined to analyze the claims of the ’399 Patent in view
`
`of the DR SSS because the issue was not raised in the appeal. See Ex. 1017,
`
`footnote 3 (stating “[n]either Digital River nor NLG ever argued that the ‘399
`
`patent is invalid as anticipated by or obvious over prior art. We decline to
`
`speculate whether Digital River’s prior art SSS, either alone or in combination with
`
`other prior art, invalidates the ‘399 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.”) The
`
`‘876 Patent was not at issue in that litigation.
`
`(8)
`
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`
`0013987, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,374, U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572,
`
`April 16, 2010. In this reexamination proceeding, claims of the ’572 Patent were
`
`analyzed against the Arnold reference under 35 U.S.C. §102. The BPAI found the
`
`claims of the ’572 Patent require a three-party system (which is explicitly recited in
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Claim 1 of the ’399 Patent) and therefore an anticipation rejection over a two-party
`
`system was overturned. Ex. 1010, 12-15.
`
`(9)
`
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`
`0013988, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,375, U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135,
`
`April 16, 2010. In this reexamination proceeding, claims of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,629,135, which is the parent of the ’572 Patent, were analyzed against the Arnold
`
`reference under 35 U.S.C. §102. The BPAI found the claims of the ’572 Patent
`
`require a three-party system (which is explicitly recited in the Claim 1 of the ’399
`
`Patent) and therefore an anticipation rejection over a two-party system was
`
`overturned. Ex. 1019, 9-11.
`
`(10) Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-00482, which
`
`involves the ’399 Patent.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`C.
`Lead counsel: Michael McNamara (Reg. No. 52,017). Back-up counsel:
`
`William A Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193).
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`D.
`Email: DDR_IPR_Service@mintz.com
`
`Post: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
`
`One Financial Center
`
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Phone: 617 542 6000 Fax: 617 542 2241
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`This Petition is entitled to a filing date of no later than May 2, 2018.
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’876 Patent is available for inter partes review, and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review on the
`
`Grounds identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`Petitioners request review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-18 of
`
`the ’876 Patent.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`B.
`For the reasons presented below, Petitioners seek the following relief:
`
`Ground
`1
`Ground
`2
`Ground
`3
`
`Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 11-13, and
`16-18
`Claims: 1, 7, 11, and 16-17
`
`Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and
`17-18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 over Loshin
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Loshin and
`the InfoHaus Documents
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Loshin and
`Moore
`
`The ‘876 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent 9,043,228, filed August 19,
`
`2013, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825, filed October 18,
`
`2010, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399, filed January 30,
`
`2006, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572, filed June 11,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`2003, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135, filed September
`
`17, 1999, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/100,697,
`
`filed September 17, 1998. Petitioners have not addressed whether the claims date
`
`back to this priority date because all prior art references in the Grounds pre-date
`
`the earliest possible priority date. Petitioners reserve the right to present such an
`
`argument if such an argument becomes relevant.
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and
`Available as Prior Art
`Published on May 1, 1996, Loshin is prior art under § 102(b). Ex. 1013.
`
`Loshin is a printed publication entitled “Selling Online With… First Virtual
`
`Holdings, Inc.” and has been publicly available to persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITAs”) since 1996. Ex. 1012, ¶4. InfoHaus Guide, InfoHaus
`
`HelpMeister, and
`
`InfoHaus Seller Program
`
`(collectively,
`
`the “InfoHaus
`
`Documents”) were publicly available and accessible to a POSITA exercising
`
`reasonable diligence by at least June 15, 1997 and are prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Exs. 1014-1016; Ex. 1012, ¶¶5-9. Filed March 31, 1998, Moore is prior art under
`
`§ 102(e). Ex. 1010.
`
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative
`2.
`Petitioner submits that the above-identified grounds are non-cumulative.
`
`Ground 1 illustrates how Loshin anticipates an outsource provider to mediate
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`processing of ecommerce tasks in a two-party system. Additionally, Patent Owner
`
`cannot swear behind Ground 1.
`
`Ground 2 adds evidence addressing elements that Patent Owner may assert
`
`are not explicitly reflected in Grounds 1.
`
`Ground 3 illustrates why it would have been obvious, when implementing a
`
`two-party system, to incorporate specific design aspects of pages served by the
`
`outsource provider based on where the page request originates. Ground 3 adds
`
`evidence addressing elements that Patent Owner may assert are not explicitly
`
`reflected in Loshin and/or the InfoHaus Documents.
`
`V.
`
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4)
`A.
`Background
`1.
`Field of Technology
`At the time of the alleged invention, ecommerce websites and systems to
`
`support ecommerce website functionality were well-established. Ex. 1002, ¶¶22-
`
`24. Ecommerce websites began as single-party Web storefronts, but quickly
`
`expanded to incorporate multi-party e-commerce arrangements, such as affiliate
`
`programs. Ex. 1001, 1:27-2:48; Ex. 1002, ¶¶16-19. As affiliate programs became
`
`more established, entities began utilizing “white-label” storefronts. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶18-20. A white-label storefront allows a first merchant to sell a merchant’s
`
`product(s) on the first merchant’s website while pages served to a customer retain
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`the look of the first merchant’s website. Id. Third party outsource providers were
`
`utilized to implement white-label storefronts and functioned to both serve the web
`
`pages and provide back-end transaction processing functionality, including
`
`payment processing. Id. At the time of the alleged invention, multiple entities
`
`already implemented these systems. Id., ¶21.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`2.
`Based on the disclosure of the DDR Patents, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSITA), in order to understand the DDR Patents and to be able to make and
`
`use the claimed inventions without undue experimentation, would need to be
`
`familiar with the development of Web applications, including Web user-interface
`
`design, electronic catalogs and online payment processing. Such topics were not
`
`generally covered in University curricula at the time. Therefore, a POSITA would
`
`need to have an undergraduate degree in computer science or a related field, or
`
`equivalent experience, and, in addition, at least one year of experience with Web
`
`user-interface design, electronic catalogs and online payment processing.
`
`The ’876 Patent
`3.
`The ’876 Patent describes a system in which certain well-known e-
`
`commerce functionality is implemented by an outsource provider. Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract; see Exs. 1018, 13 and 1019, 9-11 (noting that prior art systems provide
`
`functionality that achieves the same results as the alleged invention). In the ’876
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Patent, a host website includes links to “commerce objects” associated with a third
`
`party merchant. Ex. 1001, 4:58-5:6. Activation of such a link causes a Web page
`
`having the appearance of the host website to be served to a user’s Web browser.
`
`Id. The ’876 Patent delegates certain processing functionality to an outsource
`
`provider (Ex. 1001, 23:49-24:57), which was consistent with common industry
`
`practice at the time of the alleged invention. Ex. 1002, ¶65.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`B.
`Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI),
`
`as understood by a POSITA and consistent with the ’876 Patent’s disclosure. See
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`The following summarizes how certain claim terms of the ’876 Patent should be
`
`construed for purposes of Inter Partes Review:
`
`1.
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17)
`The term “merchants” should be construed in accordance with the definition
`
`provided by the ’876 Patent, which defines “merchants” as “producers,
`
`distributors, or resellers of the goods to be sold through the outsource provider.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:7-9; see also Ex. 1002, ¶67; Ex. 1018, 8; Ex. 1019, 6. The
`
`“merchants” can also be the “hosts.” Ex. 1001, 22:66-23:3 (“There are three main
`
`parties in the outsourced e-commerce relationship, excluding the end consumer.
`
`These parties include Merchants, Hosts, and the e-commerce outsource provider.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`This folds into two parties where one party plays the dual role of Host and
`
`Merchant.”).
`
`2.
`“host” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16)
`The term “host” should be construed in accordance with the definition
`
`provided by the ’876 Patent, which defines “host” as “the operator of a website that
`
`engages in Internet commerce by incorporating one or more link to the e-
`
`commerce outsource provider into its web content.” Ex. 1001, 23:35-37. As noted
`
`above, the “host” can be the “merchant.” Ex. 1001, 22:66-23:3
`
`3.
`“commerce object” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19)
`The term “commerce object” should be construed in accordance with the
`
`definition provided by the ’876 Patent, which defines a “commerce object” as a
`
`“product, product category, catalog, or dynamic selection.” Ex. 1001, 15:63-16:4;
`
`see also Ex. 1002, ¶68; Ex. 1018, 14.
`
`4.
`“commission” (Claims 4, 14)
`The ’876 Patent explains that the outsource provider manages payment of
`
`commissions to hosts based on relationships between the hosts and merchants. Ex.
`
`1001, 24:1-9. The ’876 Patent does not limit the how the commissions are
`
`calculated, earned, or paid. Accordingly, the BRI of the term “commission”
`
`should be construed as “money earned by a host for sales of a third party
`
`merchant’s products through the host’s website,” and should not be limited to
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`being earned based on any particular business arrangement. See Ex. 1002, ¶66; Ex.
`
`1021; Ex. 1022.
`
`C.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
`103
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4) – (5), the following analysis demonstrates
`
`where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the prior art for each of
`
`the grounds listed above.
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are anticipated by
`Loshin
`(a)
`Summary of Loshin
`Loshin describes First Virtual' InfoHaus (“InfoHaus”), an outsource provider
`
`which allowed sellers “to sell their information products without having to own
`
`their own Internet servers.” Ex. 1013, 103, 126-127; Ex. 1002, ¶70. InfoHaus was
`
`an “Internet hosting service” on which users could store their commercial
`
`opportunities (information products) and “offer them for sale without the expense
`
`and effort associated with managing their own servers.” Id. Sellers can “upload
`
`[their] data to the InfoHaus, and buyers can browse [seller’s] products (as well as
`
`those of other InfoHaus merchants) through the First Virtual Web site (or by other
`
`methods).” Id.
`
`Products uploaded to InfoHaus include a “free” portion which was a file
`
`describing the product being sold. Ex. 1013, 232-233; Ex. 1002, ¶71. That file
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`could contain text, images, audio, video, MIME, or “other” types of data. Ex.
`
`1013, 234-235; Tables 8-11, 8-12; Ex. 1002, ¶71.
`
`Loshin also describes a typical ecommerce process flow. Ex. 1013, 194-95;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶72. First, “a merchant sets up an Internet storefront for consumers to
`
`browse” commercial opportunities. The web “page includes a description of the
`
`product as well as the product’s price” and “a link from the offering screen to a
`
`transaction page[.]” Ex. 1013, 195; Ex. 1002, ¶72.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Ex. 1013, 195, Figure 7-1; Ex. 1002, ¶72. In the example disclosed above from
`
`Loshin, the product description is an image of a twenty-dollar bill. Ex. 1013, 194;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶73. Activating that “subscribe” link adjacent to the twenty-dollar bill
`
`redirects the user to a payment page to complete the purchase. Ex. 1013, 196; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶73.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Loshin, 196, Figure 7-2; Ex. 1002, ¶73.
`
`(b) Claim 1 is anticipated by Loshin
`(1) Claim Element 1.0 is taught by Loshin
`
`Loshin teaches “A method of an outsource provider serving web pages
`
`offering commercial opportunities.” Loshin teaches an outsource provider, First
`
`Virtual, serving Web pages offering commercial opportunities. Ex. 1013, 103,
`
`126-127, 207; Ex. 1002, ¶84. Loshin allows sellers to “use the First Virtual
`
`InfoHaus service to sell their information products without having to own their
`
`own Internet servers.” Ex. 1013, 103; Ex. 1002, ¶84. Sellers “upload [their] data
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`to the InfoHaus, and buyers can browse [their] products (as well as those of other
`
`InfoHaus merchants) through the First Virtual Web site (or by other methods).”
`
`Ex. 1013, 127; Ex. 1002, ¶84.
`
`(2) Claim Element 1.1 is taught by Loshin
`
`Loshin teaches “with a computer system of an outsource provider.” Ex.
`
`1013, 103, 126-127, 207. Loshin teaches an outsource provider, First Virtual,
`
`serving Web pages via InfoHaus, a web server. Ex. 1013, 127, 216-217, 238-239;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶85.
`
`(3) Claim Element 1.2 is taught by Loshin
`
`Loshin teaches “upon receiving over the Internet of an electronic request
`
`generated by an Internet-accessible computing device of a visitor in response to
`
`selection of a uniform resource locator (URL) within a source web page that has
`
`been served to the visitor computing device when visiting a website of a host that is
`
`a third party to the outsource provider.” Ex. 1013, 251. Loshin teaches an
`
`outsource provider, First Virtual, serving Web pages via InfoHaus, a web server.
`
`Ex. 1013, 251; Ex. 1002, ¶85-86.
`
`Loshin discloses a sample purchase conducted via InfoHaus whereby a
`
`buyer activates a link on a host web page, Darren New InfoHaus Page. Ex. 1013,
`
`194-196, Fig. 7-1; Ex. 1002, ¶87. “There is also a link from the offer screen to a
`
`transaction page with forms for the consumer to fill in with required information.”
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Ex. 1013, 195 (“In this case, the consumer needs to follow the link associated with
`
`the image of the $20 bill shown on the InfoHaus Web page – there is also a text-
`
`only link for text-only browsers.”); Ex. 1002, ¶87.
`
`Loshin teaches the use of URLs as a method of reaching seller’s products via
`
`the World Wide Web. Ex. 1013, 225; Ex. 1002, ¶86. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that when a URL is activated, a GET request is generated and sent to
`
`the corresponding web server. Ex. 1002, ¶87-88. Loshin teaches that the host,
`
`Darren New, is a third party to the outsource provider, First Virtual. Ex. 1013,
`
`103, 126-127; Ex. 1002, ¶88.
`
`(4) Claim Element 1.3 is taught by Loshin
`
`Loshin teaches “wherein the URL correlates the source web page with a
`
`commerce object associated with at least one buying opportunity of a merchant
`
`that is a third party to the outsource provider.” Loshin discloses a sample
`
`purchase conducted via InfoHaus whereby a buyer activates a link on a host web
`
`page, Darren New InfoHaus Page. Ex. 1013, 194-196, Fig. 7-1; Ex. 1002, ¶90.
`
`Loshin discloses an example of “There is also a link from the offer screen to a
`
`transaction page with forms for the consumer to fill in with required information.”