Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED TRANSACTIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-01366
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`Issue Date: June 20, 2006
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD RELATED TO GENERATING AND TRACKING
`AN EMAIL CAMPAIGN
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................... 1
`
`Real party in interest under § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................... 1
`
`Related matters under § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 1
`
`Lead and backup counsel under § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................ 2
`
`Service information ............................................................................... 3
`
`Fee Payment ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Priority Date ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`II.
`III. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 3
`IV. Brief Overview of the ’555 Patent ................................................................... 3
`V.
`VI. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 4
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 4
`VIII. Precise Relief Requested and Grounds Raised ................................................ 5
`IX. Brief Description of the Applied Prior Art References ................................... 6
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`A.
`
`I.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`Bergh (Ex.1002) .................................................................................... 6
`
`Calloway (Ex.1003) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Lerner (Ex.1004) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Nagda (Ex.1005) ................................................................................... 8
`
`The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ....................................................... 9
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are obvious over
`Bergh in view of Nagda. ....................................................................... 9
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 16
`
`i
`
`1.
`2.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 17
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 22
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 26
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`10. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 29
`11. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 35
`12. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 35
`13. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 36
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`10. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 54
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are obvious over
`Calloway in view of Nadga. ................................................................ 37
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 43
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 52
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`11. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 58
`12. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 59
`13. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 59
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`XI. No Basis for Discretionary Denial ................................................................. 70
`XII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 72
`
`Ground 3: Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are obvious over
`Calloway in view of Lerner. ................................................................ 60
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 61
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 65
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2 to Michael G. Foulger et al. (filed April
`25, 2001; issued June 20, 2006)
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,533,038 B2 to Christopher P. Bergh et al. (filed
`February 5, 2001; issued September 10, 2013)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,865,394 B1 to Kevin Calloway et al. (filed November
`7, 2000; issued January 4, 2011)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,859,909 B1 to Matthew R. Lerner et al. (filed March
`7, 2000; issued February 22, 2005)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,302,430 B1 to Jagdish Mooljee Nagda et al. (filed
`August 31, 1999; issued November 27, 2007)
`1006 Declaration of Dr. Eric Cole
`1007 CV of Dr. Eric Cole
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2 Prosecution File History
`1009 Docket Navigator Report on Advanced Transactions, LLC Litigation
`History
`1010 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/135,521 to Nancy Benovich Gilby
`et al. (filed May 21, 1999)
`Tim Berners-Lee et al., Request for Comments: 1738 (December 1994)
`
`1011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`Petitioner American Airlines, Inc. (American or Petitioner) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-17 (the Challenged Claims) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,065,555 B2 (the ’555 patent) (Ex.1001). According to PTO records,
`
`the ’555 patent
`
`is assigned
`
`to Advanced Transactions, LLC (Advanced
`
`Transactions or Patent Owner). For the reasons set forth below, the Challenged
`
`Claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real party in interest under § 42.8(b)(1)
`American is the real party in interest to this petition. American is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group, Inc., which is not a real party in
`
`interest to this petition.
`
`B. Related matters under § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’555 patent is the subject of American Airlines, Inc. v. Advanced
`
`Transactions, LLC, No. 4:23-cv-00576 (N.D. Tex., filed June 8, 2023). American
`
`is unaware of other active judicial or administrative matters related to the ’555
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`Lead and backup counsel under § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`American designates the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`John B. Campbell (Reg. No. 54,665)
`jcampbell@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street
`Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8730
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`George T. Fishback, Jr. (Reg. No. 76,345)
`gfishback@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street
`Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8756
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`Geoffrey L. Smith (admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`gsmith@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street
`Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8728
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`Kyle N. Ryman (admission pro hac vice
`to be requested)
`kryman@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street
`Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8729
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`Service information
`D.
`This petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’555 patent, MEUNIER CARLIN & CURFMAN LLC, 999 Peachtree Street NE,
`
`Suite 1300, Atlanta GA 30309. American consents to electronic service at AA-
`
`AdvTrans@mckoolsmith.com.
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`American requests review of 17 claims, with a $41,500 payment. The Office
`
`is authorized to charge the fees specified by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) and 42.15(a) to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-5723.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`American certifies that the ’555 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`American is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the ’555
`
`patent’s claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`IV. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ’555 PATENT
`The ’555 patent relates to “[a] method and system for generating and
`
`tracking an email campaign.” Ex.1001 at Abstract. Such “email campaign[s]” are
`
`used for “sending email to a number of email targets for such purposes” as
`
`“marketing, information acquisition, and otherwise.” See id. (1:20-25). Their
`
`progress may also be “monitored and tracked” once underway. See id. (1:42). A
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`“custom URL” may also be sent to an email target. Id. (5:48-49). The custom URL
`
`may include a “hash” for “message authentication”—i.e., as a way to “verif[y] the
`
`validity of the URL recipient” and allow “the recipient” to “view and edit the web
`
`page.” See id. (5:48-49, 6:39-42).
`
`V.
`
`PRIORITY DATE
`For purposes of this IPR, American contends the earliest effective filing date
`
`of the ’555 patent is April 25, 2001. On that date, U.S. Application No. 09/841,186
`
`was filed. That application later issued as the ’555 patent. Id. at Cover. Thus this
`
`petition applies pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 in showing unpatentability. As explained
`
`below, each of American’s prior art references were filed before the earliest
`
`priority date and qualify as prior art. See infra IX.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`American applies the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005), claim construction standard. 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340-44 (Oct. 11,
`
`2018). American does not believe explicit construction is required to resolve this
`
`petition. Still, the district court case is in its early stages, having yet to commence
`
`claim construction. American reserves the right to revisit constructions proposed in
`
`district court and, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), request leave to
`
`submit the district court’s claim construction order so the Board may consider it.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`A POSITA as of April 2001 “would have been a person with a bachelor’s
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering and at
`
`least three years of experience in networking operating systems and cybersecurity,
`
`or a person with a master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least two years of
`
`experience in the aforementioned fields.” Ex.1006 ¶ 25.
`
`VIII. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`American requests cancellation of claims 1-17 based on the following
`
`obviousness grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`1-6, 9-15
`
`1-6, 9-15
`7-8, 16-17
`
`Basis for § 103 Challenge
`Obvious over Bergh (Ex.1002) in view of Nagda
`(Ex.1005)
`Obvious over Calloway (Ex.1003) in view of Nagda
`Obvious over Calloway in view of Lerner (Ex.1004)
`
`
`
`American also submits the Declaration of Dr. Eric Cole (Ex.1006), a
`
`qualified expert in support of the obviousness grounds. See Ex.1006 ¶¶ 1-19.
`
`Grounds 1-2 are not cumulative because they use a different primary reference.
`
`Ground 3 is not cumulative because it addresses different claims from Grounds 1-
`
`2. Grounds 1-3 are also not cumulative with the art of record, including the art of
`
`record expressly considered by the examiner during prosecution of the ’555 patent,
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`because Grounds 1-3 address features found to be missing by the examiner in the
`
`considered references. Ex.1006 ¶ 33. Each of the asserted references is analogous
`
`art that is usable in an obviousness analysis. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`
`841 F.3d 995, 1000-01 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Each reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor, e.g., internet technology, and is also reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventors were involved, e.g., email marketing.
`
`See infra IX; Ex.1006 §§ IV-V. As analogous art, a POSITA is presumed to have
`
`been aware of these references. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988).
`
`IX. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLIED PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES
`Bergh (Ex.1002)
`A.
`Bergh, titled “Offer Delivery System,” is U.S. Patent No. 8,533,038 B2.
`
`Bergh’s application was filed on February 5, 2001. As a continuation in part to
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/575,283 (the ’283 Application), Bergh claims priority to
`
`the ’283 Application’s May 22, 2000 filing date. Bergh also claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 60/135,521 (filed on May 21, 1999) and 60/180,254
`
`(filed on February 4, 2000). Ex.1002 at Cover. Thus, Bergh qualifies as pre-AIA
`
`prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`Bergh discloses systems and methods to “select, deliver, and track offers” to
`
`customers—i.e., through a “campaign.” Ex.1002 (3:9, 3:32). Bergh’s campaigns
`
`may deliver offers through “electronic channels, such as email.” Id. (3:45-46).
`
`Once underway, Bergh discloses “tracking” the “success of particular marketing
`
`campaigns,” and generating “various reports” in the process. Id. (5:18, 5:22, 5:28).
`
`B. Calloway (Ex.1003)
`Calloway, titled “Multimedia Messaging Method and System,” is U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,865,394 B1. Calloway’s application was filed on November 7, 2000.
`
`It claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/197,759, which was filed
`
`on April 17, 2000. Ex.1003 at Cover. Thus, Calloway qualifies as pre-AIA prior
`
`art. See § 102(e)(2).
`
`Calloway discloses “[a] system and method for the distribution of
`
`individualized multimedia content over a network to a number of recipients.”
`
`Ex.1003 at Abstract. The “[m]ultimedia elements may be variously combined
`
`within an individualized message containing,” among other things, “text.” Id.
`
`Additionally, “the individualized content may be delivered through an email to the
`
`recipient as part of an email campaign.” Id. Once the campaign is underway,
`
`Calloway further discloses “allow[ing] instant, real-time access to . . . reports
`
`wherein clients can view the results of a campaign while it is underway.” Id.
`
`(28:13-15).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`Lerner (Ex.1004)
`C.
`Lerner, titled “System and Method for Annotating Web-Based Documents,”
`
`is U.S. Patent No. 6,859,909 B1. It was filed on March 7, 2000. Ex.1004 at Cover.
`
`Thus, Lerner qualifies as pre-AIA prior art. See § 102(e)(2).
`
`Lerner generally “allows computer users to integrate any annotation,
`
`including ink, highlighter, text-based notes and audio, directly into a Web-based
`
`document (WBD) displayed by a Web browser.” Ex.1004 at Abstract. Key to
`
`Lerner’s invention is a “URL content hash,” which “contains an integer value that
`
`results from the execution of a standard hash function on the contents of the
`
`WBD.” Id. (5:10-15). Lerner further discloses that using such a hash enables users
`
`to send “a message” with a hashed “link to someone else,” enabling the sharing of
`
`annotated WBDs. See id. (14:67-15:7).
`
`D. Nagda (Ex.1005)
`Nagda, titled “Workflow Management System for Generating Output
`
`Material Based on Customer Input,” is U.S. Patent No. 7,302,430 B1. It was filed
`
`on August 31, 1999. Ex.1005 at Cover. Thus, Nagda qualifies as pre-AIA prior art.
`
`See § 102(e)(2).
`
`Nagda generally discloses “a method, system, and program for an automated
`
`creation and delivery system for generating customer output information.” Ex.1005
`
`at Abstract. The invention in Nagda uses an “output constructor,” which “receives
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`[a] template and us[es] information in a customer record” to “populate[] the
`
`template with marketing information tailored for the customer.” Id. (3:12-15). The
`
`generated marketing material “may be converted into a portable format” to
`
`“transmit to the customer via email.” Id. (3:21-25).
`
`X.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`This petition applies bold font to terms related to’555 patent claim terms.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are obvious over Bergh in view of
`Nagda.
`Every limitation of claims 1-6 and 9-15 is disclosed or suggested by Bergh,
`
`Nagda, and a POSITA’s general knowledge. See infra X(A)(1)-(13); Ex.1006 ¶ 91.
`
`Thus a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the
`
`claimed invention using well-known, standard techniques. Ex.1006 ¶ 92. Bergh
`
`and Nagda likewise share the ’555 patent’s goals of providing a more “effective”
`
`and “efficient way to create and track a email campaign [sic].” Ex.1001 (1:33,
`
`1:43-44); see also Ex.1002 (1:29-30) (discussing limitations in prior art “reducing
`
`the effectiveness of . . . communication[s] with [a] customer”); Ex.1005 (1:35-47)
`
`(discussing that customized campaigns required “substantial human intervention,”
`
`and uncustomized campaigns were “not as effective a marketing tool”). A POSITA
`
`would have thus been motivated to combine Bergh, Nagda, and its general
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`knowledge. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 93-94. Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are therefore obvious over
`
`Bergh in view of Nagda and a POSITA’s general knowledge. Id. ¶ 95.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`[1a] “A method for conducting an email campaign,
`a)
`comprising the steps of:”
`Bergh discloses
`that “a
`
`‘campaign’ refers to a collection
`
`of offers.” Ex.1002 (3:32-33).
`
`Figure 1
`
`illustrates
`
`that
`
`those
`
`offers “are delivered by [the] offer
`
`management
`
`system 100
`
`to
`
`customers 110” and “include
`
`commercial offers.” Id. (Sheet 1);
`
`id.
`
`(3:9-11, 3:16-17). Bergh’s
`
`offer management system may
`
`deliver
`
`offers
`
`to
`
`customers
`
`through “email.” Id. (3:37-46);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`see also id. (4:29-31) (“[The] delivery component 125 can send an electronic mail
`
`message to one or more customers 110 that includes an offer.”). Thus, Bergh
`
`discloses or suggests claim 1a to the extent it is limiting. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 96-99.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`[1b] “(1) receiving an email target database;”
`b)
`Bergh discloses that “users 115 specify campaigns, and the system creates
`
`sets of specific customer offers from the campaigns.” Ex.1002 (3:35-36). Those
`
`specific “customers” are the “individuals or entities that are desired targets for the
`
`offers.” Id. (3:17-18).
`
`Bergh discloses a “customer profile database,” which includes “information
`
`specific to [each] customer[].” Id. (5:29-31). Figure 1’s arrow pointing from the
`
`customer profile database 150 to the delivery component 125 discloses receiving
`
`the customer profile database. See id.
`
`(Sheet 1); id. (5:44-45) (explaining that
`
`the “delivery component” uses
`
`the
`
`“customer
`
`profile
`
`database”);
`
`Ex.1006 ¶¶ 100-101. A POSITA would
`
`
`
`
`
`have also generally known that the content of a database could be received from
`
`an external source. Id. ¶ 102. Thus, Bergh and a POSITA’s general knowledge
`
`disclose or suggest claim 1b. Id. ¶¶ 100-103.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`[1c] “(2) generating an email campaign template
`c)
`related to at least one email target in the received email
`target database, wherein step (2) comprises:”
`To the extent claim 1c is limiting, Bergh, Nagda, and a POSITA’s general
`
`knowledge disclose or suggest it. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 104-107. Bergh discloses or suggests
`
`receiving an email target database, as discussed in claim 1b. It likewise discloses
`
`or suggests that the received email target database contains at least one email
`
`target. See supra X(A)(1)(b). Bergh also discloses or suggests claim 1c’s
`
`generating an email campaign template. See infra X(A)(1)(d)-(e).
`
`[1d] “(a) generating a message template, and”
`d)
` Bergh’s campaigns include “a template or rule” to “determine[]” the “one
`
`or more offers to specific customers.”
`
`Ex.1002
`
`(3:32-35);
`
`Id.
`
`(8:8-10)
`
`(noting that a “campaign can be
`
`thought of as a template for offers
`
`that are instantiated for particular
`
`customers”). Campaign
`
`templates
`
`include “content,” as Figure 3
`
`illustrates at 318. Id. (Sheet 3).
`
`Figure 3’s content “specifies
`
`
`
`the content and layout of the information of an offer.” Id. (8:21-22). It includes
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`“text” and “HTML” that may be “filled in” with customer-specific data, like “the
`
`customer’s name,” to “personalize[]” it “before delivery.” Id. (8:23-26). Bergh’s
`
`“email message” includes such content. Id. (8:27-28). Thus, Bergh and a
`
`POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or suggest claim 1d. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 108-110.
`
` [1e] “(b) generating a configuration file to contain
`e)
`data related to each of the at least one email target, wherein
`the data is insertable in the generated message template;”
`Nagda discloses a “template, which when generated includes the tailored
`
`marketing information to send to the customer.” Ex.1005 (2:19-20). A POSITA
`
`would understand Nagda as disclosing or suggesting claim 1e’s generated
`
`message template. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 111-112.
`
`Nagda also discloses a “customer record,” which contains data related to
`
`each of the at least one email target, such as the “Customer Name,” and “E-mail
`
`Address.” See id. Fig. 2a; see also Ex.1005 (4:17-18) (“FIGS 2a and 2b provide an
`
`example of a customer record database entry form[.]”); Ex.1006 ¶ 111. The
`
`customer record’s data is insertable in the generated message template by an
`
`“output constructor,” which “us[es] information in [the] customer record from the
`
`customer database” to “populate[] the template with marketing information
`
`tailored for the customer.” Ex.1005 (3:12-15).
`
`Nagda similarly discloses “using the preferences and information in the
`
`customer record to query and select a file that includes content tailored to the
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`customer[’s] express preferences.” Ex.1005 (5:31-33). That content “file” may be
`
`used to “generate customize information [sic] in a container”—i.e., the “sections
`
`into which files from the content database 8 are inserted” within “[a] template.” Id.
`
`(4:41-42, 5:39-40).
`
`A POSITA would thus understand that Nagda’s customer record and content
`
`files disclose or suggest claim 1e’s configuration file. Ex.1006 ¶ 111. Nagda
`
`discloses or suggests that its content file may be “generate[d],” as just discussed.
`
`Id. A POSITA would have also generally known that Nagda’s customer record
`
`could be generated. See Ex.1005 (11:45) (disclosing “generating a customer
`
`record in a first database table”); see also id. (11:33-34) (“Many modifications and
`
`variations are possible[.]”); Ex.1006 ¶ 111. Thus, Nagda and a POSITA’s general
`
`knowledge disclose or suggest claim 1e. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 111-113.
`
`[1f] “(3) sending to each of the at least one email
`f)
`target a corresponding custom email, wherein the custom
`email is formed from the email campaign template; and”
`Bergh discloses that a “personalized . . . email message may be sent directly
`
`to customers.” Ex.1002 (8:24-28). Bergh, Nagda, and a POSITA’s general
`
`knowledge also disclose or suggest generating an email campaign template to
`
`perform that personalization, as discussed. See supra X(A)(1)(c)-(e). Thus, Bergh,
`
`Nagda, and a POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or suggest claim 1f.
`
`Ex.1006 ¶¶ 114-115.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`[1g] “(4) tracking the custom email sent to each of the
`g)
`at least one email target.”
`Bergh discloses “tracking activities of the individuals to whom the offers
`
`were presented,” including “[s]tatistics related to [the] effectiveness of the offers”
`
`or “marketing campaigns involving multiple offers.” Ex.1002 (2:26-30, 12:34);
`
`Ex.1002 (14:39-42). For example, Bergh tracks “customers accessing particular
`
`web content,” and “particular activity related to offers, such as requests for
`
`information, performing commercial
`
`transactions, or otherwise explicitly
`
`responding to offers.” Ex.1002 (12:36-41). Tracking also includes “recording a
`
`customer’s access to a Web server,” “receiv[ing] a notification that the customer
`
`has read [an] email,” and “solicit[ing] an email response” from the customer.
`
`Ex.1002 (4:47-53). Thus, Bergh discloses or suggests claim 1g. Ex.1006 ¶¶ 116-
`
`117.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein step (1)
`comprises the step of: (a) generating the email target
`database.”
`Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 1b. The claims differ only in how
`
`the email target database is provided:
`
`claim 1b requires receiving it, while claim 2
`
`requires generating it. Id. ¶ 118.
`
`Bergh’s Figure 1 illustrates a customer
`
`profiles database 150 that is generated from
`
`Bergh’s profiling 155 and/or
`
`tracking
`
`components 130. Ex.1002 (Sheet 1); see also
`
`id. (5:29-30) (“Tracking component 130 also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provides data to a customer profile database.”); id. (5:43-44) (“Profiling
`
`component 155 provides data to customer profile database 150 in batch mode.”). A
`
`POSITA would understand
`
`those disclosures as disclosing or suggesting
`
`generating the email target database. Ex.1006 ¶ 119.
`
`Moreover, Nagda discloses “customer records in the first database [that] are
`
`generated by a human operator” and “[an] automated creation and delivery system
`
`to generate customer records in a database.” Ex.1005 (2:6-17). In some
`
`embodiments of Nagda, the customer records include email targets. See id. (4:40-
`
`43) (disclosing that the customer record includes “information for the delivery
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`method, e.g., e-mail address”). A POSITA would also understand those disclosures
`
`from Nagda as disclosing or suggesting generating the email target database.
`
`Ex.1006 ¶ 120.
`
`Therefore, Bergh, Nagda, and a POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or
`
`suggest claim 2. Id. ¶¶ 118-121.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3
`[3a] “The method of claim 2, wherein step (a)
`a)
`comprises the steps of: (i) collecting at least one raw
`document;”
`Bergh discloses “assembl[ing] information about particular customers.”
`
`Ex.1002 (5:37-38). That assembled information includes “customer-provided
`
`information,” which further includes “survey forms filled out by customers when
`
`registering a product.” Id. (5:41-43). Survey forms would be understood by a
`
`POSITA as raw documents. Ex.1006 ¶ 122. Thus, Bergh and a POSITA’s general
`
`knowledge disclose or suggest claim 3a. Id. ¶¶ 122-123.
`
`[3b] “(ii) parsing
`b)
`document;”
`As discussed, Bergh discloses or suggests claim 3a’s collecting at least one
`
`least
`
`one
`
`said
`
`collected
`
`at
`
`raw document. See supra X(A)(3)(a). A POSITA would have known that raw
`
`documents must be parsed to use their information. Ex.1006 ¶ 124. Thus, Bergh
`
`and a POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or suggest claim 3b. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`[3c] “(iii) categorizing said parsed at
`c)
`document into at least one category;”
`Claim 3c provides a specific method for generating the email target
`
`least one
`
`database of claim 2 by using raw documents. Id. ¶ 125. Bergh teaches assigning a
`
`“class[]” to “customers” within a “customer profile database.” Ex.1002 (5:29-31).
`
`Those “class[es] (e.g., a market segment)” can then be used to choose targets for
`
`offers. Id. (7:1-3); see also id. (11:54-56) (“[P]rioritization rules may relate to the
`
`class of user 115 that originated the offer, for example, preferring offers from a
`
`corporate marketing department to those of a local distributor.”). Given claim 3c’s
`
`context, a POSITA would thus understand that classifying customers within a
`
`customer profile database requires categorizing the parsed at least one document
`
`containing each customer’s information. Ex.1006 ¶ 125. Thus, Bergh and a
`
`POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or suggest claim 3c. Id. ¶¶ 125-126.
`
`[3d] “(iv) inserting said at least one document into a
`d)
`database; and”
`Bergh discloses “provid[ing] data to [a] customer profile database.” Ex.1002
`
`(5:44). A POSITA would understand that providing data to a database discloses
`
`inserting said at least one document into it. Ex.1006 ¶ 127.
`
`A POSITA would have also have generally known that inserting a
`
`document into a database is a required to later retrieve it. Id. Thus, a POSITA
`
`would have also been motivated to modify that reference to include claim 3d to
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`enable later access to parsed documents through Berg’s customer profile
`
`database. Id.
`
`Thus, Bergh and a POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or suggest claim
`
`3d. Id. ¶¶ 127-128.
`
`[3e] “(v) removing documents from the database
`e)
`corresponding to duplicate email addresses.”
`Bergh discloses that an object of its invention is “preventing a customer
`
`from receiving duplicate . . . offers.” Ex.1002 (6:51-52). Bergh further discloses
`
`that “[t]he specific customers to whom the offer is sent by delivery component 125
`
`can be based on a database query of customer profile database 150.” Id. (8:10-12).
`
`Because the specific customers to whom the offer is sent are based on a database
`
`query of the customer profile database, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`duplicate email addresses for that customer would need to be removed from the
`
`customer profile database to prevent duplicate offers. Ex.1006 ¶ 129. Thus, Bergh
`
`and a POSITA’s general knowledge disclose or suggest claim 3e. Id. ¶¶ 129-130.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,555 B2
`
`
`4.
`
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein step (1)
`comprises the step of: (a) requesting an email target
`database according
`to a structured query
`language
`statement.”
`Claim 4 di