UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ARTHUR M. KELLER, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ARTHUR M. KELLER, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`I, Arthur M. Keller, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration at the request of Patent Owner DDR Holdings,
`
`LLC in the above-captioned IPR proceeding. I have reviewed certain materials and
`
`express my opinions that none of the grounds stated in the Petition filed by
`
`Shopify, Inc. anticipate or render obvious the Ross et al. patent identified in the
`
`caption.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by DDR as an expert and am being compensated
`
`for my time. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this proceeding,
`
`the results of my analysis, or on the substance of my opinions and testimony. I
`
`have no interest in the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in any of
`
`the companies in Petitioner nor in DDR, nor in the Ross patent. I have had no
`
`contact with the named inventors in connection with this IPR.
`
`3. My background includes three computer-science degrees, work in
`
`research and in academic positions on various aspects and computers and the
`
`Internet. I have been involved as an expert for DDR in a prior trial in 2012.
`
`4.
`
`I was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in 1977 from Brooklyn
`
`College, with majors in Mathematics and in Computer and Information Science. I
`
`obtained a Master of Science degree and doctorate degree in Computer Science
`
`from Stanford University in 1979 and 1985, respectively.
`
`Page 1
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`5.
`
`From 1974 to 1977, I was a Systems Analyst at Brooklyn College. In
`
`1977, I also worked as an Instructor at Brooklyn College. In 1980, I worked at
`
`IBM as a Summer Research Assistant. In 1981, I again worked at IBM, as an
`
`Academic Associate. From 1977 to 1985, I worked in various roles in the
`
`Computer Science Department at Stanford University, mostly while a graduate
`
`student. My roles included working as a Research Associate, Research Assistant,
`
`Acting Assistant Chairman, and Instructor.
`
`6.
`
`I later continued my work at Stanford University in various other
`
`academic capacities. In particular, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor from 1987
`
`to 1989, a Research Associate from 1989 to 1991, a Research Scientist from 1991
`
`to 1992, and a Senior Research Scientist from 1992 to 1999.
`
`7.
`
`From 1985 to 1989, I worked as an Assistant Professor and an
`
`Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Austin in the Department
`
`of Computer Sciences. Since 2001, I have been a Visiting Associate Professor,
`
`Lecturer, and Researcher in various departments at the Baskin School of
`
`Engineering at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
`
`8.
`
`I have provided advice to startups, including as co-Founder, Board
`
`member, Chief Data Scientist, and CFO of PSYCHeANALYTICS, Inc., and co-
`
`Founder, Board member, and CFO of Active Ion Displays, Inc. Throughout my
`
`career, I have worked at various other institutions and businesses. For further
`
`Page 2
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`details regarding my employment and academic history, as well as publications
`
`and memberships, please refer to my curriculum vitae, a true and correct copy of
`
`which is being presented as Exhibit 2026.
`
`9.
`
`As shown on Exhibit 2026, I had extensive experience in the field of
`
`Internet technology, including commerce on the Internet, around the time of the
`
`invention of the Ross patent. For example, in Summer 1997, I worked as co-
`
`organizing instructor at the Western Institute for Computer Science on various
`
`Internet commerce subjects. I became Chief Technical Advisor and Board member
`
`of Persistence Software, which went public in June 1999. I served as Stanford
`
`University’s project manager for CommerceNet, a consortium promoting
`
`electronic commerce on the Internet, between 1993 and 1997. I participated in the
`
`Stanford Computer Forum, Computer Science Dept. Web Presence committee
`
`from 1996-98. I published a journal article on virtual catalogs in 1996 and 1997. I
`
`gave invited presentations on virtual catalogs and virtual information systems,
`
`including publishing in refereed proceedings, on a half-dozen occasions in 1994-
`
`1996, and gave presentations on information integration and comparing central and
`
`distributed indexing in 1997.
`
`10.
`
`In connection with preparation of this declaration, I considered the
`
`materials listed in this paragraph. From this proceeding: Petition, Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, Institution Decision (including from other IPRs filed by
`
`Page 3
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`Shopify), and Scheduling Order, Petitioner’s Exhibits 1001-02 and 1010-22}, and
`
`Patent Owner Exhibits 2001-09, 2010-12, 2015, 2017, 2021, and 2027-33. From
`
`copending proceeding IPR2018-00482: Petition, Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response, Institution Decision, various exhibits, and Patent Owner Response.
`
`From the prior lawsuit: The “Expert Report of Peter Kent Regarding the Invalidity
`
`of the ’135, ’572 and ’399 Patents,” dated May 18, 2012, the “Rebuttal Expert
`
`Report of Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D. Regarding Validity Of United States Patent Nos.
`
`6,629,135, 6,993,572, and 7,818,399,” dated June 29, 2012, and the court decisions
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
`
`aff’g in relevant part, 954 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2013). In addition, I
`
`reviewed Darnell, HTML 4 Unleashed (1998), various materials regarding URL
`
`length, and any other documents cited herein.
`
`11.
`
`I am familiar with the standards of anticipation and obviousness. I
`
`have testified on and have provided expert reports on such questions on multiple
`
`occasions.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the portion of the Institution Decision construing
`
`certain claim terms used in independent claims, and I utilized the following
`
`constructions in formulating my opinions stated herein:
`
`13.
`
`“Merchant”: “Producer, distributor, or reseller of goods or services to
`
`be sold.”
`
`Page 4
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`14.
`
`“Commerce object”: “A product (goods or services), a product
`
`category, a catalog, or an indication that product (goods or services), product
`
`category, or catalog should be chosen dynamically.”
`
`15.
`
`“Outsource provider”: “A party, independent from the host associated
`
`with the commerce object and from the merchant of the commerce object, that
`
`provides e-commerce support services between merchant(s) and host(s).”
`
`16.
`
`“Host”: “An operator of a website that engages in Internet commerce
`
`by incorporating one or more links to an e-commerce outsource provider into its
`
`web content.”
`
`17.
`
`“Commission”: “Money paid to a party by or on behalf of a third-
`
`party seller for facilitating the seller’s sales of products.”
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Shamos’ formulation defining the level of skill or
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art and have no material substantive dispute. I
`
`qualified at the time as a person of at least ordinary skill under that definition, and I
`
`was well aware of the capabilities of others of ordinary skill in the field.
`
`19. The most significant reference for this Petition appears to be Moore
`
`(Ex. 1010), which discloses a “back end” system for a merchant. Moore discloses a
`
`“Store Server” that serves a merchant’s webpage. Ex. 1010 at 7:27-30 (Store
`
`Server “performs one basic service, and that is to present the multi-media content
`
`to the customer”).
`
`Page 5
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`20. A second server, called “Store Builder Server” contains a
`
`“Development Tool” that allows a merchant to build its webpage in a set-up step.
`
`5:30-6:6, 10:23-12:58; see 7:50-60 (Store Builder Server “send[s] the Web pages
`
`to the [merchant’s] chosen hosting site”). Moore teaches downloading the
`
`Development Tool from the Store Builder Server or distributing it as stand-alone
`
`software to be run on the merchant’s own computer. 5:49-51; 5:66-6:1; 10:25-27.
`
`21. The second server also provides the “back end” by managing a
`
`“shopping basket” function in response to customers clicking “price URLs” (links)
`
`on the merchant’s page (served by the Store Server), 6:12-38; 12:12-28; Fig. 16,
`
`and a third, “Transaction Server,” later facilitates purchasing, 6:47-55.
`
`22.
`
`In response to activation of the price URL, the Store Builder Server,
`
`which may be combined with the Transaction Server, can serve a “Buy Page,” an
`
`example of which is shown in Figure 16.
`
`23.
`
`I have noted the Petition’s statement considering the “outsource
`
`provider” of the claims as Moore’s provider of e-commerce services for merchants,
`
`which operates a server that serves a Buy Page, and considering the “host” of the
`
`claims as the entity that Moore calls a “merchant.” This patent allows a “host” and
`
`a “merchant” to be the same entity, so I have accepted Petitioner’s proposed
`
`mapping for purpose of my analysis.
`
`Page 6
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`24. Figures 6-14 of Moore and the associated text, 10:43-11:67, describe a
`
`“Development Tool,” which an owner can utilize to create different pages of a
`
`website, in a highly customized fashion. The owner can use this tool to include
`
`headers, footers, colors, pictures, etc. Id. Moore teaches that the tool can create a
`
`template that can apply the resulting design to different pages of the owner’s
`
`website, and “any page” can vary from the default. 11:23-27.
`
`25. After defining the “templates” and specific pages, Moore teaches:
`
`“When the pages are all created, the Development Tool allows the merchant to
`
`upload or publish the Web pages to a site specified by the merchant.” 11:62-64.
`
`And, “FIG. 14 shows a screen which prompts the merchant for the publishing
`
`information.” 11:65-67.
`
`26. The owner can then serve the website itself or use a contract hosting
`
`service (an ISP). 4:49-56; see also 3:23-36 (“publishing the Web page at a
`
`destination of the customer’s choosing” and “the Web page server hosts the Web
`
`page” designed using the system); 7:49-60 (Store Builder Server “allows the
`
`merchant to create his Web storefront” and “then publishes the Web storefront at a
`
`site of the merchant’s choosing” by using FTP transfer “to send the Web pages to
`
`the chosen hosting site”). Either way, Moore refers to the “Web storefront” pages
`
`being served by the user’s “Store Server.” 4:50-51.
`
`Page 7
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`27. Moore also teaches that the owner must create the price URL that
`
`generates the Buy Page, which is served by the Store Builder Server. 6:12-25;
`
`12:5-28. Figure 16 shows an example of a Buy Page, whose properties and
`
`appearance the Development Tool defines through “the dialog page for the price
`
`URL” shown in Figure 15. 12:23-24.
`
`28. Moore’s Development Tool does not use information provided during
`
`the creation of Store Server pages to create Buy Pages. For example, Figure 8
`
`shows a dialog that allows a user to select a background or image for the store
`
`pages. But Figure 15 shows a second control for specifying the background of the
`
`Buy Page. That control would be pointless if the prior selection specified a
`
`common background for both store pages and Buy Pages. Likewise Figure 15 has
`
`separate and redundant controls to select text color, size, and background. The fact
`
`that the two parts have a redundant element, namely each having a “background”
`
`setting, strongly suggests that it would not have been obvious to have carried over
`
`the store configurations to the Buy Page.
`
`29. Figure 16 depicts a Buy Page with only elements that are specified
`
`through the buy page dialog in Figure 15. None of the elements that can be
`
`selected for store pages in Figures 6 through 14 but that cannot be selected for Buy
`
`Pages in Figure 15, such as a logo, a header, a footer, or a multimedia object,
`
`appear visible on the Buy Page depicted in Figure 16. The Petition does not
`
`Page 8
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`identify any specific features actually shown in Moore or specifically mentioned in
`
`Moore as corresponding between a source page and a page served by a different
`
`server system, and the Petition does not cite any place in Moore teaching
`
`corresponding overall appearance of such pair of pages.
`
`30. Moore’s label of Figure 15 as “the dialog page” (singular) contrasts
`
`with the multi-page dialog system in Figures 6-14. Nowhere in the text (of section
`
`6c or elsewhere) does Moore describe a more extensive interface to define Buy
`
`Pages or additional parameters.
`
`31. The Petition and supporting Shamos Declaration repeatedly states or
`
`implies that the information collected in the course of designing the “storefront
`
`pages,” including the headers and footers, are used on “all of the Web pages,
`
`including the buy page” or that “the header and footer are included in each page,
`
`which would include the buy pages.” I disagree. As explained above, Moore
`
`teaches using the Development Tool pages shown in Figures 6-14 to specify one
`
`set of visually perceptible elements for the Store Server and the page shown in
`
`Figure 15 to specify another set of visually perceptible elements for the Buy Pages.
`
`The Petition identifies footer and header (and like) elements, but those appear on
`
`the putative “source pages” but not on the target Buy Page. Figure 15 of Moore,
`
`which is the Development Tool page used to create Figure 16, makes clear that
`
`Moore does not teach including a header or footer on the Buy Page, and Figure 16
`
`Page 9
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`does not depict headers/footers either. The elements that can be selected for store
`
`pages in Figures 6 through 14 cannot also be selected for Buy Pages in Figure 15,
`
`such as a logo, a header, a footer, or a multimedia object, and Figure 15 does not
`
`show any controls to define the Buy Page like the controls shown in Figures 6-14
`
`to build the storefront pages.
`
`32. Although Moore refers to design features like headers and footers
`
`applying to “all pages,” Ex. 1007 at Fig. 7, and customizing (or using standard)
`
`style components on “any page,” 11:33, in context, those remarks refer to pages of
`
`the merchant’s website. Any POSITA reading Moore without the benefit of the
`
`teachings of Ross would have understood that the entirety of description in
`
`Moore’s discussion of templates at 10:43-11:67 and Figures 6-14 refers to
`
`techniques for creating the static website of the “merchant’s Web storefront” and
`
`would not imagine that those templates would extend to the Buy Page served by a
`
`different server system. Moore uses “all pages,” “each page,” and “any page”
`
`equivalently with “[e]ach page created by the merchant,” “the pages [that] are all
`
`created,” and “the Web pages” that the merchant may “upload or publish … to a
`
`site specified by the merchant.” 11:51-64. But Moore’s Development Tool does
`
`not create, preview, upload, or publish Buy Pages. The Store Builder/Transaction
`
`Server creates Buy Pages in response to the activation of a Price URL. Ex. 1010 at
`
`6:16-25; Fig. 5A. Moore’s discussion of providing a common template for “each
`
`Page 10
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`page” that the Development Tool creates thus concerns only pages of the
`
`merchant’s Storefront website, which the Petition analogizes to the “host” of the
`
`challenged patent.
`
`33. Those sentences appear exclusively in a section of Moore discussing
`
`the merchant’s control over the merchant’s web pages (section 6b in columns 10-
`
`11), whereas discussion of creating the Buy Page occurs in a different section of
`
`Moore (section 6c in column 12). There is no discussion in section 6c—the
`
`subsection that discusses Buy Pages—of applying the templates used for the
`
`Storefront Pages to a Buy Page. There is no discussion in section 6b either of the
`
`templates discussed there applying to the Buy Pages.
`
`34. Moore never says that an owner can or should configure a Buy Page
`
`to match the owner’s Store Server pages and such is not necessary. Moore teaches
`
`maintaining consistency among pages served by the merchant’s Store Server. But,
`
`as revealed by the difference between the two parts of Moore’s Development Tool,
`
`as discussed above, Moore offers no hint of extending consistency of any design
`
`element to the Buy Pages served by a different server system.
`
`35. Moore further teaches the option of placing the price URL other than
`
`on the owner’s Store Server pages, anywhere the merchant wishes, including on
`
`“news group” or places that lack any “graphical HTML capabilities.” 2:65-3:4,
`
`8:59-61. Moore does not say that the Buy Page should match such other pages
`
`Page 11
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`either. In such situations, the visual elements, including the background, specified
`
`for the Buy Page would not match the source page. The only purpose Moore
`
`provides for knowing the source URL is to be able to return the visitor to that page
`
`after a purchase (8:22-26); there is no discussion of using the information to match
`
`visual appearance. Nor does Moore discuss changing the appearance of a given
`
`Buy Page based on the link location.
`
`36. Moore’s teaching that it does not much matter where the price URL is
`
`posted and Moore’s showing of a separate part of the Development Tool being
`
`used to create the Buy Page appearance, even as to the potentially overlapping
`
`elements such as background (compare Figs. 8 and 15) both suggest a lack of
`
`concern or disclosure of matching visual appearance between the Store Server
`
`pages and the Buy Page.
`
`37. Moore’s Figures 6-14 show considerable flexibility in what the owner
`
`can do with Store Server pages, but Moore does not teach the same flexibility for
`
`Buy Pages. A more robust part of the Development Tool is used to create the store
`
`pages (Figures 6-14) and a more pared-down part is used to build the Buy Pages
`
`(Figures 15-16). Moore’s Figure 15 reveals an interface page with controls
`
`allowing the user to change only a few parameters: background, a product image,
`
`font size and color, list price, and SKU numbers. The reduced flexibility of design
`
`for Buy Pages allows easier implementation of Moore’s teaching of passing
`
`Page 12
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`information through price URLs, as discussed later in this declaration. Moore
`
`likely needed to keep the Buy Pages simple because of technical or practical limits
`
`(such as bandwidth) on the quantity of data that a price URL could contain. Moore
`
`alludes to that issue. Moore, Ex. 1007 at 9:1-8, 15-20 (emphasizing that the
`
`“transaction service provider” desires to keep costs under control by controlling
`
`“bandwidth” and “memory”). For this reason too, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading Moore would not have understood it as suggesting extending the design
`
`of Store Server pages to make a Buy Page look the same and strongly confirms that
`
`Moore’s various statements about “every page” having headers/footers (and the
`
`like) are “generic” only to Store Server Pages and do not include Buy Pages.
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition and Shamos Declaration carefully and
`
`found no citation to any evidence that it was conventional at the time to design web
`
`pages with common appearance across different websites, as opposed to within the
`
`same website, and particularly not between a statically stored website and a page
`
`(like the Buy Page) that is dynamically generated by a different server. The
`
`Shamos Declaration offers no support for any assertion that including design
`
`elements on every page was a common practice in Web page design at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, as to pages served by different server systems in an
`
`outsource-sales system. The “common practice” of including “design elements on
`
`Page 13
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`every page” did not commonly apply (at the relevant time period) to an outsource
`
`page served off-site by a different server system.
`
`39. Moore teaches—explicitly and repeatedly—that the price URL
`
`“contains all of the relevant information on the product, and all the information
`
`necessary to build a ‘Buy Page,’” including “a picture of the product, the product’s
`
`price, and a description of the product.” Ex. 1010 at 6:17-25; 8:19 (“the price URL
`
`with the product information”); see also 12:12-19 & 25-26 (“The price URL has
`
`attached an encrypted message that contains … several fields used to customize the
`
`Buy Page that is created from the attached data” and the “Store Builder Server is
`
`able to decrypt the price URL data and convert it into an HTML page (a Buy
`
`Page).”). The claims of the Moore reference likewise refer (repeatedly) to
`
`“building a Web page from the price URL that is presented to the consumer using
`
`the browser.” See, e.g., 13:37-38 (claim 1).
`
`a)
`
`A URL contains a string of characters, which at the time needed to be
`
`less than 2048 bytes to ensure that the URL would work with the two most
`
`popular browsers at the time, Internet Explorer (which was integrated into
`
`Windows 98) and Netscape (which had dominated the browser market
`
`earlier), which together had well over 90% market share in 1998.
`
`b)
`
`A simple page description including simple product image (such as
`
`shown in Moore’s Figure 16) could be encoded in the URL string itself. A
`
`Page 14
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`URL of that length can encode all information taught by Moore as needed to
`
`serve the Buy Page as shown in Figure 16, including identification of a
`
`product and its price, colors and text styles, and a product image.
`
`c)
`
`Dr. Shamos testified that encoding this information in the URL would
`
`be “impossible,” but I have tested this, and he is technically incorrect.
`
`Exhibit 2032 contains an image of a URL constructed using only 1998
`
`technology (Moore’s filing date is in 1998) that contains all information
`
`shown on Moore’s Figure 16, just as Moore teaches. The URL is an example
`
`only, and various other encodings are possible. The example included the
`
`“thumbnail” image identified as a “large” size shown in the Moore figure,
`
`and used bits extracted from a SHA1 hash of a shared secret along with the
`
`message for the encrypting the message (an encryption method available at
`
`the time). The example used the actual image from Moore’s Figure 16 scaled
`
`to the size of 120 x 90 pixels, calculated by taking the ratio of the image
`
`width shown in Moore’s Figure 16 to the screen width, assuming a monitor
`
`resolution of 640 x 480 pixels, which was a common display resolution for
`
`computers in 1998. The example URL includes the domain
`
`(StoreBuilderServer.com), path (TheBikeStore), imageFormat (centered,
`
`large, transparent background), Price (59.99 in dollars), Description (“This
`
`roof rack on sale today!”), encoded GIF Image, productName (“Bicycle
`
`Page 15
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`Roof Rack”), Sku (“NZD735”), Text size, text color and text background
`
`(05, black text, gray background), and encryption key (“d0ff7f3a” used to
`
`demonstrate the URL was not forged or modified). Based on that test, I
`
`disagree with Dr. Shamos’ speculation that, because of the alleged
`
`impossibility, a POSITA would have understood that Moore didn’t really
`
`mean what he said explicitly and would have understood Moore instead to
`
`have been referencing some kind of link within the URL, which Moore does
`
`not teach.
`
`d) More complicated formatting, such as shown in Figures 6-14 for the
`
`sales pages, would have been more difficult to implement if applied to the
`
`Buy Page and would have caused practical problems in assembling from the
`
`price URL a more robust Buy Page of that sort. Encoding the simple
`
`information shown in Figure 16 came close to the byte limit (1651 of 2048),
`
`making it clear that one could not include in a workable URL all of the
`
`information discussed in connection with the more complex storefront pages
`
`as shown in Figures 6-14. In particular, Moore’s Figure 9 shows choices for
`
`storefront page layout, which gives merchants the option to select pages with
`
`multiple images or lengthy blocks of text, all of which could not be
`
`contained in a single URL supported by the Internet Explorer browser,
`
`which was by then common and growing much more popular. Also, Figures
`
`Page 16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`10 and 13 refer to inserting a multimedia file (like a sound or video file) onto
`
`a storefront web page. Those clearly could not be contained in such a URL.
`
`40. Moore teaches: “The URL, called a price URL, contains all of the
`
`relevant information on the product, and all the information necessary to build a
`
`‘Buy Page.’ The relevant product information includes a picture of the product, the
`
`product’s price, and a description of the product.” Ex. 1010 at 6:18-20. Persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that Moore’s references to sending
`
`information for displaying a page in or attached to a URL, and building the Web
`
`page “from the price URL,” instruct the user to implement the system without
`
`requiring any permanent local storage containing appearance information specific
`
`to a particular merchant at the receiving server. Moore says that the data used to
`
`build the Buy Page comes “from the price URL,” and is “contain[ed]” in the URL,
`
`and nothing in Moore refers to retrieving any such information from storage at the
`
`server that generates the Buy Page (the Store Builder Server or the Transaction
`
`Server).
`
`41.
`
`Indeed, Moore even says that the server does not need to store any
`
`information. Moore explains that it is advantageous to store information on the
`
`owner’s site rather than at the Store Builder or Transaction Server. 5:11-18
`
`(“Transaction Server 202 need not store … any … information on the product line
`
`of the merchant”); 8:47-61 (merchant can update products or prices “all without
`
`Page 17
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`even notifying the Store Builder Server or the Transaction Server”); 9:15-20 (“The
`
`Transaction Server does not need to maintain … any information on the products
`
`being offered for sale by the merchants, nor does it need to keep any data regarding
`
`the Store Servers.”). Reasons given include minimizing space on the “Store
`
`Builder/Transaction Server” and the ability of an owner to control its site content
`
`without notifying such a server. Id.
`
`42.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Shamos’ testimony suggesting that that Moore
`
`didn’t really mean literally including the information in the URL but rather a
`
`POSITA would understand the URL as containing references to images saved
`
`somewhere, such as on Moore’s “builder/transaction server,” to build the website
`
`page and referenced in some kind of reference or link contained in the price URL.
`
`Indeed, Moore’s only references to storing the output of the Development Tool
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 5:59-63, 7:49-60, 11:62-64) refer to storing the as-built web page at
`
`the merchant’s website; Moore never hints at storing the resulting web page on the
`
`Transaction or Store Builder Servers. Dr. Shamos’ theory contradicts Moore’s
`
`teaching: “The URL, called a price URL, contains … all the information necessary
`
`to build a ‘Buy Page,’” id. at 6:19. The image or other data for the Buy Page is not
`
`“retrieved” from anywhere; rather, the receiving server “builds a Buy Page from
`
`the received HTML,” 6:24-25, “from the price URL,” 13:36, i.e., dynamically
`
`from data sent within the “price URL.” Moore does not say that the information
`
`Page 18
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`used to build the Buy Page is stored at the Transaction Server or the Store Builder
`
`Server or anywhere else accessable through Dr. Shamos’ imagined links.
`
`43. Even as to the set-up step of uploading an image to Moore’s computer
`
`running the Development Tool, that applies only to one of Moore’s two preferred
`
`embodiments. In one of Moore two Development Tool embodiments, Moore
`
`teaches downloading the Development Tool from the Store Builder Server or
`
`distributing it as stand-alone software to be run on the merchant’s own computer.
`
`5:49-51; 5:66-6:1; 10:25-27. The latter is called an “application version” that
`
`Moore explains “will allow the developer to have complete access to the local
`
`machine” and “will also run faster than the [alternative] applet.” 10:29-37. Thus,
`
`the “application version,” that is, the stand-alone Development Tool software, does
`
`not upload images even temporarily to the Store Builder Server that serves the Buy
`
`Pages. That embodiment further confirms that Moore literally means what it says
`
`when stating that the “The URL, called a price URL, contains … all the
`
`information necessary to build a ‘Buy Page.’” 6:19.
`
`44. Even as to Moore’s other embodiment, where the Development Tool
`
`runs on the Store Builder Server, Moore actually teaches that any storage of look
`
`and feel of the Store Site should not persist after the server builds the Buy Page:
`
`Moore says that modifications to the web site can be done “all without even
`
`notifying the Store Builder Server or the Transaction Server,” 8:47-55. Moore’s
`
`Page 19
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC - Ex. 2025
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC
`IPR2018-01008
`
`
`
`
`
`Keller Declaration re: U.S. Patent 9,639,876 (Ross et al.)
`
`teaching, therefore, is directly inconsistent with the idea of storing any resources
`
`for assembling a Buy Page on an Outsource Provider server.
`
`45.
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Shamos’ deposition and disagree with his
`
`speculations about what a POSITA supposedly “would understand” from reading
`
`Moore. Moore does not disclose those items, and Dr. Shamos seems to rely on pure
`
`speculation. For example:
`
`a) Moore’s image (Figure 16) of the “typical” Buy Page does not show
`
`any header, footer, company logo, or email address—the features
`
`supposedly in the “template” applied to the storefront pages, but Dr. Shamos
`
`speculates that the figure does not show such material because they just
`
`happen to be above and below the part of the page shown in the actual
`
`figure. He gives no explanation of why Moore would show only the middle
`
`of a Buy Page containing headers and footers, and I do not have one either.
`
`b)
`
`In response to the observation that the background cont
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
