Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and INTENT IQ, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01064
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`Issue Date: November 28, 2017
`
`Title: ELECTRONIC AD DIRECTION THROUGH A COMPUTER SYSTEM CONTROLLING
`AD SPACE ON MULTIPLE MEDIA PROPERTIES BASED ON A
`VISITOR’S PREVIOUS WEBSITE VISIT
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. SCHMANDT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 5 
`A.  Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 5 
`B.  Materials Considered ............................................................................ 7 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 9 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 11 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 13 
`IV.  THE ’615 PATENT ...................................................................................... 18 
`A.  Overview of the Specification ............................................................ 18 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 21 
`V.  APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ....................................................................................................... 23 
`A. 
`Brief Summary and Overview of the Prior Art .................................. 24 
`1.  Meyer [Ex. 1003] ..................................................................... 26 
`2. 
`Zeff [Ex. 1004] ......................................................................... 33 
`3. 
`Edlund [Ex. 1005] .................................................................... 37 
`4. 
`Fisher [Ex. 1006]...................................................................... 40 
`5. 
`Tittel [Ex. 1007] ....................................................................... 45 
`Ground 1: Claims 9-12 Are Obvious Over Meyer in view of
`Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher ..................................................................... 49 
`1. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 49 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(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;” (Claim 9(a)) ................................................. 58 
`“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;” (Claim 9(b)) ........................ 100 
`“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” (Claim 9(c)) ............................ 108 
`“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.” (Claim 9(d)) .......................... 129 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................. 156 
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 158 
`3. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................. 162 
`4. 
`Ground 2: Claims 9-12 Are Obvious Over Meyer in view of
`Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher, in Further View of Tittel ......................... 163 
`VI.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...... 175 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 177 
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`I, Christopher M. Schmandt, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`
`1.
`
`I have recently retired from my position as a Principal Research
`
`Scientist at the Media Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(“M.I.T”), after 40 years of employment by M.I.T. In that role, I also served as
`
`faculty for the M.I.T. Media Arts and Sciences academic program. I have more than
`
`40 years of experience in the field of Media Technology, and was a founder of the
`
`M.I.T. Media Laboratory.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from M.I.T. in 1978, and my Master of Science degree in Visual
`
`Studies (Computer Graphics), also from M.I.T. I had been employed at M.I.T. since
`
`1980, initially at the Architecture Machine Group, which was an early computer
`
`graphics research lab. In 1985, I helped found the Media Laboratory and continued
`
`to work there until my retirement. I ran a research group titled “Living Mobile.”
`
`My research spanned distributed communication and collaborative systems, with an
`
`emphasis on multi-media and user interfaces; I have more than 70 published
`
`conference and journal papers and one book in these fields.
`
`3.
`
`In my faculty position, I taught courses and directly supervised student
`5
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`research and theses at the Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. level. I oversaw the Masters
`
`and Ph.D. thesis programs for the entire Media Arts and Sciences academic program.
`
`Based on the above experience and qualifications, I have a solid understanding of
`
`the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in this technical field
`
`since at least 1980.
`
`4.
`
`During my career at the MIT Media Laboratory I worked extensively
`
`with issues in management, delivery, and interaction with multimedia content
`
`through user context modeling.
`
` This work emphasized asynchronous or
`
`synchronous delivery of current news, either as audio, video, or text. In this context
`
`I have worked with a wide variety of network technologies and protocols, connecting
`
`a broad assortment of devices. Because much of my work also involved client-server
`
`computing with segments in home networks or mobile networks, I am well versed
`
`in NAT technologies and IP port management.
`
`5.
`
`In this context I developed network protocols, servers, client software,
`
`and user interfaces and applications for networked real time data. Related to this
`
`work, for some years in the 1990s I was a member of an IETF (Internet Engineering
`
`Task Force, later IAB, Internet Activities Board) working group exploring network
`
`requirements for real time delivery of multimedia content, both point to point as well
`
`as multicast.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In the late 1980s I was involved in the installation and management of
`
`a broadband IP network using cable television hardware. In addition I have
`
`consulted with major cable television suppliers, some of whom were sponsors of
`
`work at the Media Laboratory of which I was a part. As such I am familiar with
`
`data-over-cable technologies such as Docsis, cable modem protocols, and media
`
`gateway protocols on such mixed use video plus IP networks, with delivery media
`
`spanning copper, fiber, and hybrid layered network architectures.
`
`7. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`9.
`
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2 (“’615
`
`patent”) [Ex. 1001] and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2 to Roy Shkedi (filed November 23, 2016,
`issued November 28, 2017) (“’615” or “’615 patent”)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,915,271 B1 to Carl Meyer et al. (filed March 5, 1999,
`issued July 5, 2005) (“Meyer”)
`
`1004 Excerpts from Robbin Zeff & Brad Aronson, Advertising on the
`Internet (2d ed. 1999) (“Zeff”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,251,628 B1 to Stefan B. Edlund et al. (filed October
`13, 1999, issued July 31, 2007) (“Edlund”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,835,896 to Alan S. Fisher et al. (filed March 29,
`1996, issued November 10, 1998) (“Fisher”)
`
`1007 Excerpts from Ed Tittel et al., HTML 4 for Dummies (2d ed. 1999)
`(“Tittel”)
`
`1008 Excerpts from Robbin Zeff & Brad Aronson, Advertising on the
`Internet (1997) (“Zeff 1997”)
`
`1009 Excerpts from Michael Miller, Building Really Annoying Websites
`(2001) (“Miller”)
`
`1010 Excerpts from Benay Dara-Abrams et al., Supporting Web Servers
`(2001) (“Dara-Abrams”)
`
`1011 Excerpts from Peter Fletcher et al., Practical Web Traffic Analysis:
`Standard, Privacy, Techniques, Results (2002) (“Fletcher”)
`
`1012 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed 2002)
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1013 Prosecution history of the ’615 patent
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`10.
`I understand that, under the patent laws in effect before the America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed before the
`
`AIA took effect should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date (i.e., the “time the invention
`
`was made”). For purposes of the ’615 patent, I have assumed that date to be June
`
`16, 2006, the filing date of the earliest patent application to which the ’615 patent
`
`claims priority (Appl. Ser. No. 60/804,937).
`
`11.
`
`I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1)
`
`the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art
`
`solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the
`
`rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`12. The ’615 patent states that it relates to “profile-based behavioral
`
`targeting advertising methods,” and more specifically, “electronic advertisement
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`placement based on expected profit from the placement.” (’615, 1:28-32.)
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, a person or ordinary skill in the art as of June 2006
`
`would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer
`
`systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks
`
`and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web). A person could
`
`also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of
`
`(1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical
`
`experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional
`
`experience.
`
`14. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 40 years of experience in the field of computer
`
`science, my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an
`
`engineer or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the relevant
`
`area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues, co-workers, and
`
`employees, both past and present.
`
`15. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’615 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`10
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2006.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`as of the effective filing date.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I
`
`understand that the patent specification, under the legal principles, has been
`
`described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term, and is thus highly
`
`relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I understand for terms that do not
`
`have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best
`
`context of understanding the meaning of those terms.
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that other claims of the patent in question, both
`
`asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to the meaning of
`
`a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently throughout
`11
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the
`
`same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`dictionaries, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`
`a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S. district court (which I
`
`understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction standard), including
`
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`12
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the effective filing
`
`date, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art. I also understand that certain other facts known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexplained results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for determining
`
`what art is analogous is: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`
`regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field
`
`of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`13
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid
`
`“hindsight bias” and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But
`
`this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated
`
`purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the
`
`objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is
`
`obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid.
`
`27.
`
`I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there
`14
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
`
`solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that a motivation to
`
`combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a
`
`variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand
`
`that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide
`
`a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this finite number of predictable solutions leads to the anticipated
`
`success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence
`
`invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be
`15
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely
`
`obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a
`
`prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating
`
`that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of
`
`prior art. I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, or from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. I understand that
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common
`
`sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`29.
`
`I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales
`
`that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a
`16
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1)
`
`Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(6)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that, when determining whether a claimed combination is
`
`obvious, the correct analysis is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art, writing
`
`on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular combination of elements
`
`described in the claim. Instead, I understand the correct analysis considers whether
`
`one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
`
`field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`
`reference. The test for obviousness, in other words, is not whether the references
`
`could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`IV. THE ’615 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Specification
`
`32. The ’615 patent, entitled “Electronic Ad Direction Through A
`
`Computer System Controlling Ad Space On Multiple Media Properties Based On A
`
`Viewer’s Previous Website Visit,” states that it “generally relates to profile-based
`
`behavioral targeting advertisement placement methods” and more specifically, “to
`
`electronic advertisement placement based on expected profit from the placement.”
`
`(’615, 1:28-32.)
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`33.
`
`In the “Background of the Invention” section, the ’615 patent
`
`acknowledges the existence of so-called behavioral targeting companies (“BT
`
`companies”), which “specialize in targeting ads based on observed behavior of sites’
`
`visitors.” (’615, 2:5-13.) The patent explains that a BT company receives or collects
`
`profile information about site visitors, such as behavioral information, demographic
`
`information or user-provided information, and “target[s] ads to those visitors
`
`wherever found based on the collected profile information.” (’615, 2:36-43.)
`
`34. The patent explains that, in order for those visitors to be “found,” the
`
`BT company “tags” the visitor, or arranges for the visitor to be tagged by a third
`
`party, such as by the operators of other media properties. (’615, 2:1-5; see also id.,
`
`3:31-36 (“A tag generally is a unique identifier used to mark a person electronically
`
`visiting a media property such as a web site, TV channel, radio show, or the like,
`
`using a computer, a mobile device… or any other device.”).) A “cookie” placed on
`
`the visitor’s device is “one example of a possible tag.” (’615, 3:31-32; see also id.,
`
`3:24-30.)1 The ’615 patent acknowledges that the placement of cookies on
`
`
`
` The term “cookie” refers to a well-known technology created in the mid-1990s
`
` 1
`
`by Netscape that allowed a server for a website to send a small block of information
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`computers in order to recognize those users when they visit websites was known in
`
`the art and practiced by prominent Internet advertising services such as DoubleClick
`
`and existing “BT companies.” (’615, 1:36-2:13.)
`
`35. The advertisement placement methods described
`
`in
`
`the ’615
`
`specification generally involve a BT company arranging with a third party to tag a
`
`visitor to a first media property (such as a web site), such as by having the third party
`
`place a cookie on the visitor’s computer. (E.g., ’615, 6:26-32, 8:50-54, 8:56-63.)
`
`The tag identifies the visitor’s computer as being associated with the BT company
`
`and, because the tag is readable by the third party, enables the third party to recognize
`
`
`
`
`to a user’s web browser, where it would be stored. The user’s browser would then
`
`send that block of information back to the server when issuing subsequent requests
`
`for information from that website. One of the primary purposes of cookies,
`
`consistent with the ’615 patent, was to allow a web server to identify the user when
`
`the user accessed pages of a website. This functionality was (and remains to this
`
`day) widely used for many well-known functions such as maintaining a “shopping
`
`cart” for a user and allowing a user to “log-in” to a website and receive information
`
`that is tailored or personalized for that user.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`the visitor at a later time. (E.g., ’615, 6:26-32, 8:50-54, 8:56-63, 9:50-54.) The tag
`
`thus enables the third party to identify the tagged visitor at a later time, for example,
`
`if it accesses a website whose advertising space is managed by the third party. The
`
`third party then arranges for the BT company to serve an ad to the visitor. (E.g.,
`
`’615, 9:16-22.) The BT company targets an ad to the visitor using profile
`
`information collected about the visitor while visiting the first media property,
`
`provided that the ad can be delivered for less than a price cap specified by the BT
`
`company. (E.g., ’615, 8:48-55, 9:47-54, 7:7:49-57.)
`
`36.
`
`I discuss additional aspects of the ’615 patent as needed in the analysis
`
`below.
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`37. This Declaration addresses claims 9-12 of the ’615 patent. Independent
`
`claim 9 recites:
`
`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
`21
`
`
`
`
`Meta's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0021
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 B2
`
`
`
`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)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`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;
`
`electronically