`Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC,
`v.
`AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC
`IPR2022-01064
`Patent 9,830,615 B2
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`September 6, 2023
`
`Before Kristen L. Droesch, Thomas L. Giannetti, and Scott B. Howard,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Meta Exhibit 1020
`
`
`
`Claim 9 of the ’615 Patent
`9. A computer system controlled by a behavioral targeting company (BT company), which
`computer system (BT computer system) is comprised of one or more computers and is
`structured and programmed to perform a method of directing electronic advertisements, the
`method comprising:
`automatically with the BT computer system:
`(a) at a first time, arranging for a third party computer system controlling advertising space
`on a plurality of third party media properties to electronically tag a first computer of a first
`visitor visiting a first website, without transferring to the third party computer system any
`profile information related to the first visitor, which tag is readable by computers operating
`under a domain of the third party computer system and identifies the visitor computer as
`associated with the BT company;
`(b) recording, in a profile of the first visitor maintained by the BT computer system, profile
`information collected during the first computer’s visit to the first website;
`(c) electronically transferring to the computer system a price cap that the BT company is
`willing to pay for allowing delivery of an advertisement within media property advertising
`space controlled by the third party computer system controlling advertising space on the
`plurality of third party media properties; and
`(d) at a second time, later than the first time, upon receiving a redirection of the first
`computer while the first computer is visiting one of the plurality of third party media
`properties, causing a selected advertisement to be served to the first computer, which
`advertisement is based on the profile information collected during the first computer's visit
`to the first website, which profile information is in the profile of the first visitor maintained
`by the BT computer system, in exchange for a price less than the price cap.
`
`U.S. Patent 9,830,615 B2
`Ex. 1001
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• Ground 2 adds Tittel (EX1007) as a further basis for
`obviousness with respect to claim 9(d)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Meyer (EX1003)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, Fig. 1, 7:19-25)
`(Petition at 13-18)
`5
`
`
`
`Meyer (EX1003)
`
`Separate account provider and service provider entities/computer systems
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, Fig. 1, 18:18-22, 18:35-45, 19:6-10)
`(Petition at 13-18)
`6
`
`
`
`Meyer (EX1003)
`
`Ad space on third party media properties controlled by service provider computer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, 27:66-28:19)
`(Petition at 22-23)
`7
`
`
`
`Meyer (EX1003)
`
`Account provider computer arranges for service provider computer to tag visitor computer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, Figs. 22 & 23, 33:30-34)
`(Petition at 25-27)
`8
`
`
`
`Meyer (EX1003)
`
`Account provider computer arranges for service provider computer to tag visitor computer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, 56:15-18)
`(Petition at 34)
`9
`
`
`
`Zeff (EX1004)
`
`Known ad networks (e.g. DoubleClick and Flycast)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Zeff, p.00130; Schmandt, ¶41 (quoting Zeff, pp.00133-134, 0065))
`(Petition at 12, 18-21)
`10
`
`
`
`Zeff (EX1004)
`
`Well-known techniques for using Internet auctions to sell ad space on websites
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Zeff, p.0083)
`(Petition at 43-44)
`11
`
`
`
`Edlund (EX1005)
`
`Techniques for automating bids in Internet auctions
`
`(Edlund, 2:59-67; see also id., 4:58-5:6, 8:62-9:18)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Petition at 47-50)
`12
`
`
`
`Fisher (EX1006)
`
`Known techniques for enhancing electronic auctions
`
`(Fisher, 12:63-13:2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Fisher, 10:29-35)
`
`(Petition at 62-65)
`13
`
`
`
`Tittel (EX1007)
`
`Web browser redirection for image
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Tittel, p.0047)
`
`(Petition at 69)
`14
`
`
`
`Key Disputes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Key Disputes
`
`• “…without transferring to
`the third party computer
`system any profile
`information…”
`
`• Motivation to Combine
`(with proxy bidding or
`Dutch auction)
`
`• Claim 12 – “automatically
`with the BT computer
`system”
`
`12. The system of claim 9 further comprising a storage containing visitor profile information and
`wherein, in the method performed by the system, the act in part (d) of causing a selected
`advertisement to be served to the first computer comprises (i) selecting an advertisement based
`on the visitor profile information in the storage, and (ii) serving the selected advertisement to the
`first computer.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`“…without transferring to the third party
`computer system any profile information…”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`“…without transferring to the third party computer system any profile information…” - Petition
`
`No transfer of profile information occurs, under proposed
`combination:
`
`(1) During performance of the “arranging” step; or
`
`(2) After performance of the “arranging” step
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Petition at 30-32, 59-61; Reply at 7-18)
`
`18
`
`
`
`“…without transferring to the third party computer system any profile information…” – PO Arguments
`
`• PO: Meyer transfers profile information to service provider computer
`(“third party computer system”) because:
`
`1. During: Member ID itself is profile information
`
`2. After: Profile information is transferred after enrollment
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(PO Resp. at 27-36)
`
`19
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information
`During Arranging Step
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Construction of “Profile Information” – Patent Owner
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(PO Resp. at 7-8)
`
`21
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`’615 Description of “Profile Information”:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, 2:37-43, 3:40-44)
`(Petition at 30)
`
`22
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`’615 Description of “Profile Information”:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, 9:47-65)
`(Reply at 9-10)
`
`23
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Only information potentially transferred to service provider computer during enrollment is member ID
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, 33:30-34, Fig. 8)
`(Petition at 30)
`
`24
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Member ID in Meyer is not “profile information”
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Schmandt, EX1002, ¶108)
`(Petition at 30-31)
`
`25
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Meyer member ID is not “observed behavior” or “demographic information”
`
`• Meyer: member ID does not reveal either type of profile information:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`(Meyer, 49:33-37, 48:24-26; see also id., 47:28-34)
`(Reply at 7-9; Schmandt, EX1002, ¶108)
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Meyer member ID is not “observed behavior” or “demographic information”
`
`• Meyer: explicit enrollment not required to become a member:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, 33:40-42, 11:34-41)
`(Reply at 7)
`
`27
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Member ID in Meyer: Indistinguishable from ’615 Preferred Embodiment
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, 9:47-54)
`(Reply at 9-10)
`
`28
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Member ID in Meyer: Indistinguishable from ’615 Preferred Embodiment
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, 9:54-65)
`(Reply at 9-10)
`
`29
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information During Arranging Step
`
`Member ID in Meyer: Indistinguishable from ’615 Preferred Embodiment
`’615 Patent:
`
`Patent Owner Response re Member ID in Meyer:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, 9:47-65; PO Resp. at 28)
`(Reply at 11)
`
`30
`
`
`
`“…without transferring to the third party computer system any profile information…” – Response to PO
`
`“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is
`rarely,
`if ever correct and would require highly persuasive
`evidentiary support.”
`
`Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Reply at 11)
`
`31
`
`
`
`“…without transferring to the third party computer system any profile information…” – Response to PO
`
`Patent Owner’s argument would render claim 9 inoperable
`
`?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, claim 9(a))
`(Reply at 12)
`
`32
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information
`After Arranging Step
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Construction of “Arranging… Without Transferring” – Patent Owner
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(PO Resp. at 9)
`
`34
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information After Arranging Step
`
`Claim 9: Does not preclude transfer of profile information after “arranging” step
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Reply at 2-4)
`
`35
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information After Arranging Step
`
`It is well-established that a “comprising” claim is “inclusive or
`open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited
`elements or method steps.”
`CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Reply at 3)
`
`36
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information After Arranging Step
`
`Would have been obvious to implement Meyer to not transfer
`member profile information to service provider computer
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`• Important to protect member privacy when service
`provider and account provider owned/operated by
`separate entities
`
`• Service provider makes no use of member profile
`information during enrollment, so transferring
`profile information to it serves no purpose
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`(Petition at 31-32, 59-61; Schmandt, EX1002, ¶¶109-110, 177-178.)
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information After Arranging Step
`
`No prohibited transfer of profile information after “arranging” step
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(PO Response, p.32 (annotations added))
`(Reply at 12-13)
`
`38
`
`
`
`No Transfer of Profile Information After Arranging Step
`
`No prohibited transfer of profile information after “arranging” step
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, Fig. 7)
`(Reply at 14-16)
`
`39
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine with Edlund and Fisher
`(re proxy bidding and Dutch auction)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Obvious for account provider computer to automatically transmit a bid for Internet
`advertising – Petition
`
`Zeff: Auctions for Selling Advertising
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Zeff, p.0083)
`(Petition at 43-45)
`41
`
`
`
`Obvious for account provider computer to automatically transmit a bid for Internet
`advertising – Petition
`
`Edlund:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Edlund, 2:59-67; see also id., 4:58-5:6, 8:62-9:18)
`(Petition at 47-50)
`42
`
`
`
`Obvious for account provider computer to automatically transmit a bid for Internet
`advertising – Petition
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`• Edlund’s techniques would have alleviated burden
`of manually monitoring auctions
`
`• Edlund’s techniques would have allowed advertiser
`to automatically monitor and place bids across
`multiple auction sites, “enhanc[ing] the probability
`of buying the desired item”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`(Schmandt, EX1002, ¶¶157-158;
`see also Edlund, 2:27-30, 3:5-14, 5:1-10, 6:46-49, 9:5-13)
`(Petition at 48-50)
`
`
`
`Obvious to use proxy bidding and Dutch auction techniques – Petition
`
`Fisher:
`
`(Fisher, 12:63-13:2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Fisher, 10:29-35)
`
`(Petition at 62-65)
`44
`
`
`
`Obvious to use proxy bidding and Dutch auction techniques – Petition
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`• Both proxy bidding and Dutch auction format
`improve auction fairness
`
`• Proxy bidding:
`
`• Dutch auction:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Schmandt, ¶¶186-190;
`Fisher, 10:33-35, 13:15-24)
`(Petition at 63-65)
`
`45
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – PO Arguments
`
`• PO: No motivation to combine with proxy bidding or Dutch auction
`because:
`
`1. Meyer “almost uniformly” discloses only one account provider
`and one service provider
`
`2. Service provider would receive less revenue from individual
`sales using Dutch auction
`
`3. Edlund limited to commodity products such as CD-ROMs or
`cassettes
`
`4. No disclosure of how to automatically calculate advertisement
`value or price cap
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(PO Resp. at 44-51)
`
`46
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Response to PO
`Meyer not limited to single account provider
`Meyer:
`
`. . .
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, 47:12-15, 16:39-41; EX1018, ¶¶46-47)
`(Reply at 18-19)
`
`47
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Response to PO
`Proposed combination would benefit bidders and sellers
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(EX1018, ¶52)
`(Reply at 19-20)
`
`48
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Response to PO
`Edlund is not limited to tangible or commodity products
`
`Edlund:
`
`. . .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Edlund, 4:7-9, 10:41-51)
`(Reply at 20-21)
`
`49
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Response to PO
`Edlund is not limited to tangible or commodity products
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(EX1018, ¶54)
`(Reply at 20-21)
`
`50
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine – Response to PO
`Claim 9 does not recite anything about how an ad is valued or price cap determined
`
`Petitioner’s expert:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(EX1018, ¶57; see also id., ¶58)
`(Reply at 20-21)
`
`51
`
`
`
`Claim 12: “automatically with the BT computer
`system … (i) selecting … and (ii) serving …”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” – PO Arguments
`
`• PO: “selecting” and “serving” steps of claim 12
`must be performed by the BT computer system
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(PO Resp. at 52-53)
`
`53
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” – Claim 9
`
`. . .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Reply at 6)
`
`54
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” – Claim 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’615, Claim 12)
`
`55
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” – Response to PO
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Reply at 22-23)
`
`56
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” - Petition
`Even if claim 9 required “by” and not just “with” the
`BT computer system, it would have been obvious
`
`Motivations for a Skilled Artisan:
`
`• Ability to target incentives without having to transfer
`potentially sensitive member information to another
`entity (i.e., service provider), where it could be
`misused
`
`• Increased efficiency by avoiding need for account
`provider computer to transmit demographic
`information to another computer
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Schmandt, ¶¶176-178)
`(Petition at 58-61)
`
`57
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” - Petition
`Even if claim 9 required “by” and not just “with”
`BT computer system, it would have been obvious
`
`. . .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Petition at 68-71)
`
`58
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” - Petition
`Even if claim 9 required “by” and not just “with” the BT computer system,
`it would have been obvious
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Tittel, p.0048;
`see also Meyer, 24:27-32, 29:16-21, 30:22-32)
`(Petition at 71-73)
`
`59
`
`
`
`“automatically with the BT computer system” - Petition
`Meyer: not limited to storing incentives at service provider computer
`
`. . .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Meyer, 36:58-67, 34:62-65)
`(Reply at 23-24)
`
`60
`
`
`
`Thank you
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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