`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2024-00145
`U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,510,407
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR ......................................................................... 1
`A. Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 1
`B.
`Challenge and Relief Requested ........................................................... 1
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 2
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 3
`“networked information monitor” (“NIM”) ................................ 3
`1.
`2.
`“networked information monitor template” ............................... 4
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 5
`D.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’407 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 7
`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................... 8
`[GROUND 1A/1B] – Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-16, and 19-23 are
`A.
`rendered obvious by Brown [1A], claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24
`are rendered obvious by Brown and Wecker [1B] ............................... 8
`Overview of Brown .................................................................... 9
`1.
`2.
`Overview of Wecker ................................................................ 10
`3.
`Combination of Brown and Wecker ........................................ 11
`4.
`Analysis .................................................................................... 15
`Ground 1A (Brown) ....................................................... 16
`a)
`b)
`Ground 1B (Brown-Wecker) ......................................... 27
`c)
`Ground 1A (Brown) ....................................................... 32
`d)
`Ground 1B (Brown-Wecker) ......................................... 34
`e)
`Ground 1A (Brown) ....................................................... 38
`f)
`Ground 1B (Brown-Wecker) ......................................... 41
`g)
`Ground 1A (Brown) ....................................................... 41
`h)
`Ground 1B (Brown-Wecker) ......................................... 42
`[GROUND 1C] – Claims 5-6 and 17-18 are rendered obvious
`by Brown and Beer, and/or Brown and Wecker in view of Beer ....... 51
`1.
`Overview of Beer ..................................................................... 51
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis .................................................................................... 54
`2.
`[GROUND 2] – Claims 1-24 are rendered obvious by Shimada
`and Buchholz ...................................................................................... 57
`1.
`Overview of Shimada ............................................................... 57
`2.
`Overview of Buchholz ............................................................. 57
`3.
`Combination of Shimada and Buchholz .................................. 59
`4.
`Analysis .................................................................................... 60
`IV. PTAB DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE INSTITUTION ......... 84
`A.
`The General Plastic Factors Favor Institution ................................... 85
`Factor 1: Petitioner’s Multiple Petitions Do Not Prejudice
`1.
`Patent Owner ............................................................................ 86
`Factors 2 and 3: Petitioner’s Knowledge of the Prior Art
`in the Samsung Petition Did Not Prejudice Patent Owner
`and Does Not Implicate Road- Mapping or Playbooking
`Concerns ................................................................................... 86
`Factors 4 and 5: Petitioner Diligently Prepared This
`Joinder Petition at the Appropriate Time ................................. 87
`Factors 6 and 7: Institution Efficiently Promotes Patent
`Quality ...................................................................................... 87
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution ................................................... 88
`B.
`The Advanced Bionics Test Favors Institution ................................... 89
`C.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 89
`V.
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ....................... 90
`VII. Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................................... 90
`A.
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 90
`B.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................ 91
`C.
`Service Information ............................................................................ 91
`D.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ........................................................................ 91
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 to Kembel, et al. (“the ’407 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1002
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’407 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”
`Exhibit 10031 Declaration of Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt
`Exhibit 1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,278,448 B1 (“Brown”)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,449,638 B1 (“Wecker”)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,793,368 (“Beer”)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,789,263 B1 (“Shimada”)
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,088,340 (“Buchholz”)
`Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,819,345 B1 (“Jones”)
`Exhibit 1011 HTML 4 Unleashed (“Darnell”)
`Exhibit 1012
`IPR2019-01279 Final Written Decision
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,342,907 B1 (“Petty”)
`Exhibit 1014
`Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Solutions
`LLC, No. 2021-1247, 2021 WL 5822248 (Dec. 8, 2021).
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,311,058 B1 (“Wecker 2”)
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,737,560 (“Yohanan”)
`Exhibit 1017
`CNET News, “PointCast unveils free news service,”
`https://web.archive.
`org/web/20110616130215/http://news.cnet.com/PointCas t-
`unveils-free-news-service/2100-1023_3-204658.html, last
`accessed Feb. 16, 2023
`Exhibit 1018 Declaration of June Ann Munford
`Exhibit 1019 DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. et al., 6:22-cv-00535, W.D. Tex., filed May 24, 2022
`Exhibit 1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,094,681 (“Shaffer”)
`Exhibit 1021
`RESERVED
`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,185,614 B1 (“Cuomo”)
`Exhibit 1023 DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc., W-22-CV-00533-
`ADA, W.D. Tex., Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to
`Transfer Issued July 25, 2023
`
`
`1 Petitioner notes that because Dr. Schmidt’s declaration remains unchanged, the
`citations within the declaration retain the same exhibit numbers but use the original
`prefixes (e.g., SAMSUNG).
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1024 DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc., W-22-CV-00533-
`ADA, W.D. Tex., Report to USPTO re Transfer Decision
`Exhibit 1025 DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc., W-22-CV-00533-
`ADA, W.D. Tex., DoDots Motion to Waive Confidentiality
`Requirements
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1pre]
`
`[1.1]
`
`[1.2]
`
`[1.3]
`
`[1.4]
`
`[1.5]
`
`LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`A client computing device configured to access content over a
`network, the client computing device comprising:
`
`electronic storage configured to store networked information monitor
`template associated with a networked information monitor, the
`networked information monitor template having therein a definition
`of a viewer graphical user interface having a frame within which
`time varying content in a web browser-readable language may be
`presented on a display associated with the client computing device,
`wherein the frame of the viewer graphical user interface lacks
`controls for enabling a user to specify a network location at which
`content for the networked information monitor is available; and
`
`one or more processors configured to execute one or more computer
`program modules, the one or more computer program modules being
`configured to access the networked information monitor defined by
`the networked information monitor template, wherein accessing the
`networked information monitor defined by the networked
`information monitor template results in:
`
`transmission, over a network to a web server at a network location,
`of a content request for content to be displayed within the frame of
`the viewer graphical user interface defined by the networked
`information monitor template:
`
`reception, over the network from the web server at the network
`location, of content transmitted from the web server in response to
`the content request, the content being time-varying:
`
`presentation, on the display, of the viewer graphical user interface
`defined by the networked information monitor template outside of
`and separate from any graphical user interface of any other
`application; and
`
`v
`
`

`

`presentation, on the display within the frame of the viewer graphical
`user interface defined by the networked information monitor, of the
`time-varying content received from the web server.
`
`The method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to reception
`of one or more elements included in the received time-varying
`content, modifying a feature of said viewer graphical user interface
`defined by the networked information monitor template in
`accordance with a modification corresponding to the received one
`or more elements.
`
`The client computing device of claim 2, wherein said modification
`corresponding to the received one or more elements comprises a
`modification to an image defined by the networked information
`monitor template as forming a part of said viewer graphical user
`interface.
`
`The client computing device of claim 2, wherein the correspondence
`between the modification and the received one or more elements is
`defined by the networked information monitor template.
`
`The client computing device of claim 2, wherein the one or more
`computer program modules and the networked information monitor
`template are configured such that modifying the feature of the viewer
`graphical user interface comprises adjusting a size of the frame of the
`viewer graphical user interface.
`
`[1.6]
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2]
`
`Claim 3
`
`[3]
`
`Claim 4
`
`[4]
`
`Claim 5
`
`[5]
`
`Claim 6
`
`vi
`
`

`

`[6]
`
`The client computing device of claim 2, wherein the one or more
`computer program modules and the networked information monitor
`template are configured such that modifying the feature of the viewer
`graphical user interface comprises changing a color of a frame border
`or background of the viewer graphical user interface.
`
`Claim 7
`
`[7]
`
`Claim 8
`
`[8]
`
`Claim 9
`
`[9]
`
`Claim 10
`
`[10]
`
`Claim 11
`
`The client computing device of claim 2, wherein the one or more
`computer program modules and the networked information monitor
`template are configured such that modifying the feature of the viewer
`graphical user interface comprises modifying text of the viewer
`graphical user interface in a manner defined by the networked
`information monitor template.
`
`The client computing device of claim 1, wherein the networked
`information monitor template includes a markup language file.
`
`The client computing device of claim 1, wherein one or more
`computer program modules are configured such that the time-
`varying content is received from the web server over the network
`according to the TCP/IP protocol.
`
`The client computing device of claim 1, wherein the network
`location corresponds to a uniform resource locator included in the
`networked information monitor template.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`[11]
`
`Claim 12
`
`[12.1]
`
`[12.2]
`
`[12.3]
`
`[12.4]
`
`Claim 13
`
`[13pre]
`
`[13.1]
`
`The client computing device of claim 10, wherein the one or more
`computer program modules are further configured such that
`accessing the networked information monitor defined by the
`networked information monitor template results in transmission of
`the content request to the uniform resource locator included in the
`networked information monitor template, and the content request
`being transmitted according to the TCP/IP protocol over the network.
`
`The client computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more
`computer program modules are further configured:
`
`to transmit, over the network to a networked information monitor
`server, a request for the networked information monitor template:
`
`to receive, from the networked information monitor server over the
`network, the networked information monitor template; and
`
`to store the networked information monitor template to the electronic
`storage.
`
`A computer-implemented method of accessing content over a
`network on a client computing device, the client computing device
`having electronic storage and one or more processors configured to
`execute one or more computer program modules, the client method
`comprising:
`
`storing, to the electronic storage, a networked information monitor
`template associated with a networked information monitor, the
`networked information monitor template having therein a definition
`of a viewer graphical user interface having a frame within which
`timevarying content in a web browser-readable language may be
`presented on a display associated with the client computing device,
`wherein the frame of the viewer graphical user interface lacks
`controls for enabling a user to specify a network location at which
`content for the networked information monitor is available;
`
`viii
`
`

`

`accessing the networked information monitor defined by the
`networked information monitor template, wherein accessing the
`networked information monitor defined by the networked
`information monitor template results in:
`
`transmission, over a network to a web server at a network location,
`of a content request for content to be displayed in the viewer
`graphical user interface defined by the networked information
`monitor template;
`
`reception, over the network from the web server at the network
`location, of content transmitted from the web server in response to
`the content request, the content being time-varying:
`
`presentation, on the display, of the viewer graphical user interface
`defined by the application media package template outside of and
`separate from any graphical user interface of any other application;
`and
`
`presentation, on the display within the frame of the viewer graphical
`user interface defined by the networked information monitor, of the
`time-varying content received from the web server.
`
`The method of claim 13, responsive to reception of one or more
`elements included in the received time-varying content, modifying a
`feature of said viewer graphical user interface defined by the
`networked information monitor template in accordance with a
`modification corresponding to the received one or more elements.
`
`The method of claim 14, wherein said modification corresponding to
`the received one or more elements comprises a modification to an
`image defined by the networked information monitor template as
`forming a part of said viewer graphical user interface.
`
`[13.2]
`
`[13.3]
`
`[13.4]
`
`[13.5]
`
`[13.6]
`
`Claim 14
`
`[14]
`
`Claim 15
`
`[15]
`
`Claim 16
`
`ix
`
`

`

`[16]
`
`Claim 17
`
`[17]
`
`Claim 18
`
`[18]
`
`Claim 19
`
`[19]
`
`Claim 20
`
`[20]
`
`Claim 21
`
`[21]
`
`Claim 22
`
`[22]
`
`The method of claim 14, wherein the correspondence between the
`modification and the received one or more elements is defined by the
`networked information monitor template.
`
`The method of claim 14, wherein modifying the feature of the viewer
`graphical user interface comprises adjusting a size of the frame of the
`viewer graphical user interface.
`
`The method of claim 14, wherein modifying the feature of the viewer
`graphical user interface comprises changing a color of a frame border
`or background of the viewer graphical user interface.
`
`The method of claim 14, wherein modifying the feature of the viewer
`graphical user interface comprises modifying text of the viewer
`graphical user interface in a manner defined by the networked
`information monitor template.
`
`The method of claim 13, wherein the networked information monitor
`template includes a markup language file, and wherein storing the
`networked information monitor template comprises storing the
`markup language file.
`
`The method of claim 13, wherein the time-varying content is
`received from the web server over the network according to the
`TCP/IP protocol.
`
`The method of claim 13, wherein the network location corresponds
`to a uniform resource locator included in the networked information
`monitor template.
`
`x
`
`

`

`Claim 23
`
`[23]
`
`Claim 24
`
`[24.1]
`
`[24.2]
`
`
`
`The method of claim 22, wherein accessing the networked
`information monitor defined by the networked information monitor
`template results in transmission of the content request to the uniform
`resource locator included in the networked information monitor
`template, and the content request being transmitted according to the
`TCP/IP protocol over the network.
`
`The method of claim 13, further comprising: prior to storing the
`networked information monitor template to the electronic storage,
`transmitting, over the network to a networked information monitor
`server, a request for the networked information monitor template;
`and
`receiving, from the networked information monitor server over the
`network, the networked information monitor template.
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1-24 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 (“the ’407
`
`Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Apple certifies that the ’407 Patent is available for IPR. This petition is being
`
`filed within one month of Decision instituting Inter Partes Review in Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., v. DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC, Inter Partes Review No.
`
`IPR2023-00701. Apple is not barred or estopped from requesting review of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the below-identified grounds.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Apple requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds noted below.
`
`Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt provides supporting testimony in his Declaration. EX1003,
`
`¶¶1-234.
`
`
`
`Ground
`
`Claim(s)
`
`§103 Basis
`
`1-4, 7-11, 13-16, 19-23 Obvious over Brown
`
`1-4, 7-16, 19-24
`
`Obvious over Brown and Wecker
`
`5-6, 17-18
`
`Obvious over Brown and Beer, and/or
`Brown, Wecker, and Beer
`
`1-24
`
`Obvious over Shimada and Buchholz
`
`1A
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`The ’407 Patent claims priority to an application filed on April 26, 2000, as
`
`well as to a number of provisional applications, the earliest of which was filed on
`
`April 26, 1999. EX1001, Cover. Solely for purposes of evaluating prior art in this
`
`proceeding and without conceding the propriety of these priority claims, this Petition
`
`will treat April 26, 1999, as the effective filing date (“Critical Date”). The applied
`
`references qualify as prior art at least under Pre-AIA §102(e) as indicated below.
`
`Reference
`
`Filing Date
`
`Publication
`Date
`
`Brown
`
`Wecker
`
`Beer
`
`Shimada
`
`Buchholz
`
`08/21/2001
`
`02/17/1998
`
`09/10/2002
`
`06/30/1998
`
`11/14/1996
`
`08/11/1998
`
`09/07/2004
`
`06/18/1997
`
`07/11/2000
`
`06/23/1998
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Reference
`
`Filing Date
`
`Publication
`Date
`
`Brown
`
`Wecker
`
`Beer
`
`Shimada
`
`08/21/2001
`
`02/17/1998
`
`09/10/2002
`
`06/30/1998
`
`11/14/1996
`
`08/11/1998
`
`09/07/2004
`
`06/18/1997
`
`2
`
`

`

`Buchholz
`
`07/11/2000
`
`
`06/23/1998
`
`A. Claim Construction
`All claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard. Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. §42.100. Under the
`
`Phillips standard, the “words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read
`
`in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Com-
`
`puter Entertainment America LLC, 669 F. 3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). All claim terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning in the context of the specification as detailed in the relevant
`
`sections below, except that Petitioner provides the following discussion to aid the
`
`Board in interpreting the following terms.2
`
`1.
`“networked information monitor” (“NIM”)
`For the purposes of this proceeding, this term, which appears in claims 1, 11,
`
`13, and 23, should be construed to mean “a fully configurable frame, with one or
`
`more controls, through which content is presented to the user.” EX1003, ¶28. This
`
`
`2 Petitioner does not concede that the challenged claims meet all statutory standards.
`Patentability under §101 or compliance with §112 is not appropriate to resolve in
`IPR, and Petitioner reserves all rights to challenge claims for reasons out of scope
`for IPR.
`
`3
`
`

`

`definition is consistent with the use of the term in the specification of the ’407 patent,
`
`as well as the definition adopted by Patent Owner in prior proceedings. See, e.g.,
`
`EX1001, 5:21-24; EX1012, Pages 10-11; EX1014, *3-4. Thus, for purposes of this
`
`IPR, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s construction of networked information
`
`monitor, which was adopted in IPR2019-01279. EX1012, Pages 10-11; EX1003,
`
`¶28.
`
`2.
`“networked information monitor template”
`For the purposes of this proceeding, this term, which appears in claims 1-8,
`
`10-16, 19-20, and 22-24 should be construed to mean “a data structure that defines
`
`the characteristics of a NIM, including the NIM frame, view, and control
`
`characteristics, and that excludes executable applications/compiled code.”
`
`EX1003, ¶29. This definition is consistent with the use of the term in the
`
`specification of the ’407 Patent. See, e.g., EX1001, 6:66-67, 7:1-2 (“Each NIM
`
`template defines the characteristics of a specific NIM, including fully configurable
`
`frame characteristics, viewer and control characteristics, and NIM content
`
`references”). Additionally, the ’407 Patent states, “NIMs allow a developer to pro-
`
`vide an application feel without developing custom client applications.” Id., 26:38-
`
`40. The ’407 Patent further states that a NIM definition “is content, rather than
`
`compiled code.” Id., 21:49-50. According to Patent Owner in IPR2019- For the
`
`purposes of this proceeding, this term, which appears in claims 1-8, 10-16, 19-20,
`
`4
`
`

`

`and 22-24 should be construed to mean “a data structure that defines the
`
`characteristics of a NIM, including the NIM frame, view, and control
`
`characteristics, and that excludes executable applications/compiled code.”
`
`EX1003, ¶29. This definition is consistent with the use of the term in the
`
`specification of the ’407 Patent. See, e.g., EX1001, 6:66-67, 7:1-2 (“Each NIM
`
`template defines the characteristics of a specific NIM, including fully configurable
`
`frame characteristics, viewer and control characteristics, and NIM content
`
`references”). Additionally, the ’407 Patent states, “NIMs allow a developer to pro-
`
`vide an application feel without developing custom client applications.” Id., 26:38-
`
`40. The ’407 Patent further states that a NIM definition “is content, rather than
`
`compiled code.” Id., 21:49-50. According to Patent Owner in IPR2019-01279, a
`
`networked information monitor template “is not compiled code, and can- not be an
`
`executable application or applet.” EX1012, Page 12. Thus, for purposes of this IPR,
`
`Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s construction of networked information monitor
`
`template, which was adopted in IPR2019-01279. EX1012, Pages 13-14; EX1014,
`
`*3-4; EX1003, ¶29.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill (“POSITA”) relating to the subject matter of the
`
`’407 Patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least three years of
`
`5
`
`

`

`corresponding industry work experience. EX1003, ¶¶20-21. Additional graduate
`
`education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in
`
`the field could substitute for formal education. Id. This definition is consistent with
`
`the previous definition of a POSITA adopted in IPR2019-01279. EX1012, Page 8.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’407 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’407 Patent is directed to “accessing and viewing internet content”
`
`through a plurality of software “networked information monitors” or “NIMs”
`
`EX1001, Abstract, 5:21-24. The ’407 Patent discloses that NIMs include “a fully
`
`configurable frame with one or more controls; the frame through which content is
`
`optionally presented.” Id. Figure 4 below provides an example of a collection of
`
`NIMs according to the ’407 Patent.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG 4
`
`6
`
`

`

`NIMs are executed by a “Home NIM” which “coordinates the activities of all
`
`other NIMs.” EX1001, 5:29-31. Figure 11 provides an example process of
`
`downloading and generating a NIM according to the ’407 Patent.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 11
`
`
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’407 application was allowed after two Office Actions, which presented
`
`rejections over prior art references that are substantially different from those relied
`
`upon in this petition. EX1002, 137-142, 903-914, 938-948, 973-977. Indeed, during
`
`prosecution, the examiner did not consider any of Brown, Wecker, Beer, Shimada,
`
`and Buchholz, which render the Challenged Claims obvious, as discussed below.
`
`7
`
`

`

`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`[GROUND 1A/1B] – Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-16, and 19-23 are
`rendered obvious by Brown [1A], claims 1-4, 7-16, and 19-24 are
`rendered obvious by Brown and Wecker [1B]
`Below, the Petition presents a first ground based on Brown alone and a second
`
`ground based on the combination of Brown and Wecker. In the first ground [1A],
`
`the Petition relies on the disclosure of Brown and explains why Brown’s disclosure,
`
`when interpreted in view of the general knowledge of a POSITA, renders obvious
`
`claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-16, and 19-23. In the second ground [1B], the Petition relies on
`
`the same disclosure of Brown and explanation of obviousness as presented in the
`
`first ground [1A], but turns to Wecker’s disclosure for a single feature of claim 1
`
`(“electronic storage configured to store networked information monitor
`
`template”) and features of claims 12 and 24. Although all of the features of claim 1
`
`are rendered obvious by Brown alone as explained below, Petitioner has advanced a
`
`combination of the Brown and Wecker for claim 1 to the extent Patent Owner argues
`
`that the single feature of claim 1 is not explicit in Brown. Because the use of Brown’s
`
`disclosure and corresponding obviousness arguments are similar for both grounds
`
`[1A/1B], the Petition discusses these grounds together for ease of presentation.
`
`EX1003, ¶43.
`
`8
`
`

`

`1.
`Overview of Brown3
`Brown describes “a method of creating a composite desktop built from Web
`
`content retrieved from one or more Web sites.” EX1005, Abstract. Brown’s
`
`composite desktop includes components, which can be “a static image or an active
`
`desktop component providing dynamic content.” Id., Abstract; EX1003, ¶30.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 3A (above), Brown’s “composite desktop 302 includes one
`
`or more desktop components,” where each “desktop component is a distinct
`
`geometric region that displays a single piece of Web-based content.” EX1005, 7:21-
`
`23. Brown describes that “the component may be selected from a Web page, within
`
`which the component is embedded.” EX1005, 7:40-41; EX1003, ¶31.
`
`
`3 Descriptions of the references and combinations thereof are incorporated into each
`mapping that includes citations to these references. All emphasis is added unless
`otherwise indicated.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Brown also describes desktop component instructions, which “include a URL
`
`specifying an Internet location where additional HTML code corresponding to the
`
`active desktop component 308 resides.” EX1005, 13:1-4; EX1003, ¶32.
`
`Overview of Wecker
`
`2.
`Wecker describes “a method for rendering information,” the information
`
`including “a content structure file, a data file and a script file.” EX1006, Abstract;
`
`EX1003, ¶33. Wecker describes that “the content structure file is read to ascertain
`
`which script in the script file is associated with data to be rendered.” Id. Thereafter,
`
`“[t]he data from the data file is retrieved and the associated script file is executed to
`
`render the data.” Id.
`
`EX1006, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`EX1006, FIG. 6 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Wecker describes that “the content is provided in a standard format, such as
`
`HTML, JPEG, GIF, WAV, etc.” and that “[t]he web content is also preferably
`
`described in a content structure file also known commonly as a channel definition
`
`format (CDF) file.” EX1006, 3:2-6; EX1003, ¶34.
`
`3.
`Combination of Brown and Wecker
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Brown and Wecker
`
`(collectively the “Brown-Wecker combination”). EX1003, ¶35. Among other
`
`things, both Brown and Wecker are generally directed to “accessing and viewing
`
`internet content” and further describe the use of Microsoft’s channel definition
`
`format (CDF) to implement subscriptions to internet content, with Brown explicitly
`
`directing the reader toward additional references that discuss CDF. EX1005,
`
`Abstract, 13:4-13, 13:39-44; EX1006, Abstract, 3:1-16; EX1003, ¶35. Given the
`
`11
`
`

`

`similarity of the disclosures, and spurred by Brown’s directive, a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious to consider Wecker’s disclosure in the context of Brown’s
`
`system for multiple reasons. For example, as Dr. Schmidt explains, a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious to leverage Wecker’s disclosure of a cache to store HTML
`
`style templates. A POSITA also would have found it obvious that Brown’s desktop
`
`components could be implemented as mobile channels, such that a user could
`
`download desktop components, and their associated HTML instructions, to their
`
`composite desktop. EX1005, 7:21-23; EX1006, 3:6-14; EX1003, ¶35.
`
`As Dr. Schmidt explains, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`
`Brown and Wecker for various reasons. EX1003, ¶36.
`
`First, a POSITA would have recognized that Wecker’s mobile channel “script
`
`files,” also referred to as “templates,” are data structures that are similar in objective
`
`to the “HTML instructions” that define Brown’s “desktop components.” EX1005,
`
`12:61-62; EX1006, 3:17-20; EX1003, ¶37. Indeed, Wecker describes that “the users
`
`of desktop 16 can preferably subscribe to channels in a standard fashion which
`
`provide the user with certain channel content” and that the desktop can “periodically
`
`retrieve or receive new and updated script, data and CDF files.” EX1005, 3:63-66,
`
`4:3-6; EX1003, ¶37. A POSITA would have recognized or found obvious that the
`
`“desktop,” as contemplated by Wecker, would have possessed similar features to the
`
`“composite desktop” of Brown and that these features of Wecker’s desktop could be
`
`12
`
`

`

`incorporated into Brown with a reasonably high expectation of success. EX1003,
`
`¶37.
`
`A POSITA would have been prompted to pursue this combination because
`
`doing so is merely the application of known techniques (e.g., rendering content using
`
`templates/script files) to a known structure (e.g., Brown’s composite desktop) to
`
`yield predictable results. EX1003, ¶38; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Additionally, both Brown and Wecker describe the Windows
`
`95 operating system as a suitable operating system that can implement their
`
`techniques. EX1005, 6:26-32; EX1006, 8:15-21. Finally, both Brown and Wecker
`
`are assigned to the “Microsoft Corporation” and, therefore, a POSITA would have
`
`reasonably expected their techniques to be compatible as the assignee would have
`
`been motivated by business reasons to provide commonality between their products.
`
`EX1005, Cover; EX1006, Cover. Thus, as Dr. Schmidt explains, a POSITA would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Wecker’s techniques
`
`into the disclosure of B