Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 71 PageID 362
`Case 2:12—cv—O2781—JPM—tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 71 Page|D 362
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 71 PageID 363
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Case No.: To be Assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,314
`UNDER 35 U.S.C §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 3 of 71 PageID 364
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Table of Authorities............................................................................................. vi
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES..........................................................................1
`a.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..........................1
`b.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................1
`i.
`Current Litigation ....................................................................1
`ii.
`Administrative Proceedings .....................................................2
`Lead and Backup Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)....................2
`c.
`Service of Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4).........................3
`d.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW..................................3
`a.
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...........................3
`b.
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ..............................4
`i.
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)..........................................................5
`1.
`“Unique Identifier” (Claims 11, 15)...............................6
`2.
`“Demographic Information” (Claims 11, 20) .................6
`3.
`“Periodically” (Claims 11 and 12) .................................7
`4.
`“Software” (Claims 11 and 20) ......................................7
`How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)..........................................................8
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .............8
`iii.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART................................................................8
`DETAILED CHALLENGE.........................................................................9
`a.
`The ’314 Patent..................................................................................9
`i.
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ’314 Patent..............9
`ii.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘314 Patent.........12
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`ii.
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 4 of 71 PageID 365
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Ground 1 – Logan Anticipates Claims 11, 12, 13, 18 and 20: ..........13
`i.
`Brief Overview of Logan .......................................................13
`ii.
`Analysis.................................................................................14
`1.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 11.........................................14
`a.
`“A method of provide demographically-
`targeted advertising to a computer user” ............14
`“providing a server that is accessible via a
`computer network, permitting a computer
`user to access said server via said computer
`network,” ...........................................................16
`“acquiring demographic information about
`the user, said demographic information
`including information specifically provided
`by the user in response to a request for said
`demographic information,” ................................16
`“providing the user with download access to
`computer software that, when run on a
`computer, displays advertising content,
`records computer usage information
`concerning the user's utilization of the
`computer, and periodically requests
`additional advertising content,”..........................17
`“transferring a copy of said software to the
`computer in response to a download request
`by the user,”.......................................................20
`“providing a unique identifier to the
`computer, wherein said identifier uniquely
`identifies information sent over said
`computer network from the computer to said
`server,” ..............................................................20
`“associating said unique identifier with
`demographic information in a database,” ...........23
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 5 of 71 PageID 366
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`h.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“selecting advertising content for transfer to
`the computer in accordance with the
`demographic information associated with
`said unique identifier;”.......................................23
`“transferring said advertising content from
`said server to the computer for display by
`said program,” ...................................................24
`“periodically acquiring said unique identifier
`and said computer usage information
`recorded by said software from the computer
`via said computer network, and associating
`said computer usage information with said
`demographic information using said unique
`identifier.”..........................................................26
`Logan Anticipates Claim 12 of the ’314 Patent............29
`2.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 13 of the ’314 Patent............29
`3.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 18 of the ’314 Patent............30
`4.
`Logan Anticipates Claim 20 of the ’314 Patent............31
`5.
`Ground 2 – Logan Renders Claims 11, 12, 13, 18 and 20
`Obvious ...........................................................................................32
`Ground 3 – Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ’314
`Patent Specification .........................................................................33
`i.
`Brief Overview of Robinson ..................................................33
`ii.
`Analysis.................................................................................34
`1.
`Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ‘314
`Patent Specification Renders Claim 11 Obvious ..........34
`a.
`“A method of providing demographically-
`targeted advertising to a computer user” ............35
`“providing a server that is accessible via a
`computer network, permitting a computer
`user to access said server via said computer
`network,” ...........................................................35
`-iii-
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`b.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 6 of 71 PageID 367
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`“acquiring demographic information about
`the user, said demographic information
`including information specifically provided
`by the user in response to a request for said
`demographic information,” ................................36
`“providing the user with download access to
`computer software that, when run on a
`computer, displays advertising content,
`records computer usage information
`concerning the user's utilization of the
`computer, and periodically requests
`additional advertising content,”..........................37
`“transferring a copy of said software to the
`computer in response to a download request
`by the user,”.......................................................41
`“providing a unique identifier to the
`computer, wherein said identifier uniquely
`identifies information sent over said
`computer network from the computer to said
`server,” ..............................................................42
`“associating said unique identifier with
`demographic information in a database,” ...........45
`“selecting advertising content for transfer to
`the computer in accordance with the
`demographic information associated with
`said unique identifier;”.......................................46
`“transferring said advertising content from
`said server to the computer for display by
`said program,” ...................................................47
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 7 of 71 PageID 368
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`j.
`
`“periodically acquiring said unique identifier
`and said computer usage information
`recorded by said software from the computer
`via said computer network, and associating
`said computer usage information with said
`demographic information using said unique
`identifier.”..........................................................49
`Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ‘314
`Patent Renders Claim 12 of the ’314 Patent
`Obvious .......................................................................53
`Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ‘314
`Patent Renders Claim 13 of the ’314 Patent
`Obvious .......................................................................54
`Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ‘314
`Patent Renders Claim 15 of the ‘314 Patent
`Obvious .......................................................................55
`Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ‘314
`Patent Renders Claim 18 of the ‘314 Patent
`Obvious .......................................................................55
`Robinson in View of the Admissions in the ’314
`Patent Specification Renders Claim 20 Obvious ..........56
`Ground 4 – Logan in view of Robinson Renders Claims 11, 12,
`13, 15, 18, and 20 Obvious ..............................................................57
`VI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................60
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`e.
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 8 of 71 PageID 369
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`CASES
`In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................5
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................5
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..........................................................................5
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) ................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ....................................................................................................61
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .............................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)..............................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123......................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10....................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ...............................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ...............................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101................................................................................................61
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104...................................................................................................3
`
`42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................5
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 9 of 71 PageID 370
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 1001 – U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 to Hoyle
`
`Exhibit 1002 – U.S. Patent No. 5,721,827 to Logan
`
`Exhibit 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 5,918,014 to Robinson
`
`Exhibit 1004 – Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`Exhibit 1005 – Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314
`
`Exhibit 1006 – Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010
`
`Exhibit 1007 – Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1008 – Barry M. Leiner et al., Brief History of the Internet,
`INTERNET SOCIETY (Oct. 15, 2012),
`http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Brief_Histo
`ry_of_the_Internet.pdf
`
`Exhibit 1009 – “Hypertext Markup Language,” Network Working Group
`Request for Comments 1866, November 1995
`
`Exhibit 1010 – September 2012 Web Server Survey, Netcraft.com,
`http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2012/09/10/september-
`2012-web-server-survey.html (last visited Sep. 28, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1011 – “The Common Gateway Interface (CGI) Version 1.1,”
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 3875,
`October 2004
`
`Exhibit 1012 – Application Server Product Vendors, Service-
`Architecture.com, http://www.service-
`architecture.com/products/application_servers.html (last
`visited Sep. 28, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1013 – “HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working
`Group Request for Comments 2109, February 1997
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 10 of 71 PageID 371
`
`Exhibit 1014 – “HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working
`Group Request for Comments 6265, April 2011
`
`Exhibit 1015 – “Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program,”
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 675,
`December 1974
`
`Exhibit 1016 – Netscape Homepage, Netscape.com,
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961219074448/http://www7.ne
`tscape.com/ (last visited Oct. 4, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1017 – Download Netscape Communicator or Netscape Navigator
`Software, Netscape.com,
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961230200703/http://www.net
`scape.com/comprod/mirror/client_download.html (last
`visited Oct. 8, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1018 – U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 to Filepp
`
`Exhibit 1019 – Stephen Gray Curriculum Vitae
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 11 of 71 PageID 372
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On behalf of Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 & 42.100-.123, inter partes review is
`
`respectfully requested for claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,628,314 (“the ’314 Patent”) (GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1001 “Ex. 1001”). This
`
`petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail on at least one of the claims challenged in the petition based on prior art
`
`references that the USPTO did not have before it during prosecution. Claims 11-
`
`13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 Patent should therefore be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`a.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Google Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`b.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`i.
`
`Current Litigation
`
`The ’314 Patent is presently the subject of litigation in the following cases
`
`which may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding: B.E. Technology,
`
`LLC v. Google Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02830; B.E. Technology, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02829; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02831; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., W.D.
`
`Ten., No 2:12-cv-02783; B.E. Technology, LLC v. People Media, Inc., W.D. Ten.,
`
`No 2:12-cv-02833; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Match.com LLC, W.D. Ten., No
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 12 of 71 PageID 373
`
`2:12-cv-02834; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc., W.D. Ten., No
`
`2:12-cv-02782; B.E. Technology, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-
`
`02772; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02769;
`
`and B.E. Technology, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02781.
`
`Administrative Proceedings
`ii.
`Petitioner filed on October 7, 2013 two petitions for inter partes review
`
`directed to related U.S. Patent No 6,771,290, which is also at issue in B.E.
`
`Technology, LLC v. Google Inc., W.D. Ten., No 2:12-cv-02830.
`
`c.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Clinton H. Brannon (Reg. No. 57,887)
`cbrannon@mayerbrown.com
`
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3440
`Fax: (202) 263-3300
`
`Backup Counsel
`Brian A. Rosenthal (pro hac vice
`motion requested)
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3446
`Fax: (202) 263-3300
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests authorization to file a motion for Brian A.
`
`Rosenthal to appear before the USPTO pro hac vice. Mr. Rosenthal is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and is currently serving as one of the lead counsels
`
`for Google Inc. in related matter B.E. Technology, LLC v. Google Inc., W.D. Ten.,
`
`No 2:12-cv-02830. Mr. Rosenthal has established familiarity with the subject
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 13 of 71 PageID 374
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner intends to file a motion to appear pro
`
`hac vice under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), powers of attorney accompany this
`
`Petition.
`
`Service of Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`d.
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the mailing
`
`address of lead and backup counsel designated above. Petitioner also consents to
`
`electronic service by email at: cbrannon@mayerbrown.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104, each requirement for inter partes review of the
`
`’314 Patent is satisfied.
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`a.
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’314 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review. Specifically, Petitioner certifies that: Petitioner has not filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of a claim of the ’314 Patent; this Petition is filed
`
`less than one year from October 9, 2012, the date on which the Petitioner was
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’314 Patent; the estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this inter partes review; and
`
`this Petition is filed after the later of (a) the date that is nine months after the date
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 14 of 71 PageID 375
`
`of the grant of the ’314 Patent or (b) the date of termination of any post-grant
`
`review of the ’314 Patent.
`
`In addition, the required fees are submitted herewith. The Office is
`
`authorized to charge any fee deficiency, or credit overpayment, to Deposit Account
`
`No. 130019. Petitioner is currently filing an Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e)).
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`b.
`The precise relief requested by Petitioner is that claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20
`
`of the ’314 Patent be cancelled in view of the following prior art references:
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,721,827 to
`Logan et al. (“Logan”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,918,014 to
`Robinson (“Robinson”)
`
`Filing/Priority
`Date
`Oct. 2, 1996
`
`Date of Issuance
`
`Feb. 24, 1998
`
`Dec. 26, 1996
`
`Jun. 29, 1999
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`The ’314 Patent is a divisional application of application No. 09/118,351,
`
`filed on July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. The ’314 Patent was filed
`
`October 30, 2000, and was issued on September 30, 2003.
`
`Accordingly, Logan qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)
`
`and/or (e); Robinson qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`None of the above references were cited during the prosecution of the ’314
`
`Patent. In the instant inter partes review, Petitioner applies the above references
`
`and asserts the following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 15 of 71 PageID 376
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`11, 12, 13,
`18, 20
`11, 12, 13,
`18, 20
`11, 12, 13,
`15, 18, 20
`11, 12, 13,
`15, 18, 20
`
`4
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’314 Patent
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Logan.
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Logan.
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Robinson in view of
`the admissions in the ’314 Patent specification.
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Logan in view of
`Robinson.
`
`i.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 42
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984); In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004). Under that standard, “[w]ords in a claim are to be given their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning unless the inventor chose to be his own lexicographer in the
`
`specification.” See In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`In the ’314 Patent, applicants provided explicit definitions for 15 terms,
`
`including several terms used in claims 11-13, 15, 18 and 20 of the ‘314 patent,
`
`such as “computer,” “server,” “computer usage information,” “program,” and
`
`“information resource.” See Ex. 1001, col. 3:33-4:15. Petitioner submits that the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of the limitations of claims 11-13, 15, 18 and 20
`
`must encompass these definitions, and therefore submits that those definitions
`
`should apply to this proceeding. Of particular relevance to this petition is
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 16 of 71 PageID 377
`
`“computer usage information,” which the Patent defines as “data concerning a
`
`person’s use of a computer, including such things as what programs they run, what
`
`information resources they access, what time of day or days of the week they use
`
`the computer, and so forth.” Ex. 1001, col. 3:37-41; see also Declaration of
`
`Stephen Gray (Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 88-89).
`
`Petitioner also submits the following additional proposed constructions for
`
`terms not explicitly defined in the ’314 Patent:
`
`“Unique Identifier” (Claims 11, 15)
`1.
`The specification describes that the server “assigns a unique ID to the user
`
`and then stores that ID along with the received demographic data….” See Ex.
`
`1001, col. 17:13-14 (emphasis added). The specification then states: “The user ID
`
`that is stored along with the demographic data is used to anonymously identify the
`
`user for the purpose of demographically targeting advertising to that user.” Id. at
`
`col. 17:29-31 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 18:21-24. Since the unique
`
`identifier is described as specific to the user, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “unique identifier” in view of the specification is “information that uniquely
`
`identifies a user.” See Ex. 1001, col. 17:29-38; see also Ex. 1004, ¶ 91.
`
`“Demographic Information” (Claims 11, 20)
`2.
`The specification provides examples of demographic information, including
`
`time zone, city, state, etc. See Ex. 1001 at col. 3:8-10; col. 17:3-7. The
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 17 of 71 PageID 378
`
`specification also describes prior art as using demographics to target ads, including
`
`age and gender. Id. at col. 3, ll. 23-26; Ex. 1018 at col. 81:15-22. All are
`
`examples of characteristic information of a user, but none specifically identify the
`
`user. Petitioner thus submits that the broadest reasonable construction of the term
`
`“demographic information” should be “collected characteristic information about a
`
`user that does not identify the user.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 2:40-48; col. 3:9-11;
`
`col. 17:29-38; see also Ex. 1004, ¶ 92.
`
`“Periodically” (Claims 11 and 12)
`3.
`Since the plain meaning of periodic can include regular intervals and/or
`
`irregular intervals (see Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995), Ex. 1007),
`
`Petitioner submits the broadest reasonable construction of this term should be “at
`
`regular or irregular time intervals.”1 See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 93-94.
`
`“Software” (Claims 11 and 20)
`4.
`The term “software,” which appears in claims 11 and 20, is not explicitly
`
`defined in the specification. Instead, “software application” is defined as “a
`
`program and associated libraries and other files.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:12-13. The
`
`broader term “software” is understood in ordinary usage to include one or more
`
`1 With all terms addressed herein, Petitioner notes that a proper claim construction
`
`in litigation, including reference to the file history of the patent, may be different
`
`than the broadest reasonable construction proposed herein.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 18 of 71 PageID 379
`
`programs. See, e.g., Ex. 1007; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 95-96. Hence, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “software” is “one or more computer programs and associated
`
`libraries and other files,” and would not be limited to a single program.2 See, e.g.,
`
`col. 11:62 – col. 12, l. 2; col. 12:7-11, see also Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 95-96.
`
`ii.
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, including the
`
`identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`
`printed publications, is provided below.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`iii.
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence and its relevance, including
`
`an identification of specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`below. An Appendix of Exhibits identifying the exhibits is attached. The
`
`technical information and grounds for rejection explained in detail in the petition
`
`are further supported by the Declaration of Stephen Gray attached as Ex. 1004.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the field of the ’314 Patent in 1998 would have
`
`had good knowledge of computer networking, networking architecture, and online
`
`2 A proper litigation construction may be different, when the disclosure of the
`
`specification and file history is considered.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 19 of 71 PageID 380
`
`advertising. This person would also be familiar with client-server systems and
`
`information delivery systems. This person would have gained this knowledge
`
`through an undergraduate degree in electrical/computer engineering, computer
`
`science (or equivalent degree), or through two or more years of work experience in
`
`the relevant field, or through a combination thereof. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 22-23.
`
`V.
`
`DETAILED CHALLENGE
`
`a.
`
`The ’314 Patent
`
`Summary of the Alleged Invention of the ’314 Patent
`i.
`The ’314 Patent generally describes a user interface that provides
`
`advertisements to a user. The disclosed system includes a user’s computer 18
`
`connected to an advertising and data management (ADM) server 22 through the
`
`Internet 20. See Ex. 1001 at FIG. 1, shown below:
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 20 of 71 PageID 381
`
`The ’314 Patent discloses that a client software application 10 is initially
`
`stored at the ADM server 22. Id. at col. 7:24-28. After a request of the application
`
`by a user, the client software application 10 is downloaded and stored on the user’s
`
`computer 18. See id. The client software application 10 includes a graphical user
`
`interface (GUI) module 12 having “programming necessary to provide a user
`
`interface to the computer’s software applications and operating system[.]” Id. at
`
`col. 7:8-11. The GUI module 12 generates the application window 24 on the
`
`user’s computer monitor 26 which includes a banner region 28 for advertisements
`
`containing banner storage 30. See id. at col. 7:30-39; FIG. 1.
`
`In addition to the GUI module 12, the client software application 10 also
`
`includes an ADM module 14 that “provides the basic management of the display
`
`and refreshing of advertising as well as the acquisition and reporting of computer
`
`usage information to an advertising and data management (ADM) server 22 via the
`
`Internet 20.” Id. at col. 7:11-15. The client software application 10 periodically
`
`reports computer usage information to the ADM server and periodically retrieves
`
`additional advertising content from the ADM server. Id. at col. 7:40-49.
`
`The ADM server 22 is located away from the user’s computer and includes
`
`an ad database 44 and a user/demographics database 46. See FIG. 3, shown below:
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 21 of 71 PageID 382
`
`The ad database 44 stores banner advertising which the database provides to
`
`clients 40 both initially during the installation of application 10 and periodically
`
`thereafter. See id. at col. 8:39-43. The user/demographics database 46 includes
`
`information about the user and is “used in targeting the advertising downloaded to
`
`the individual client computers 40.” Id. at col. 8:55-57.
`
`When a user requests access to the client application software, the user
`
`provides demographic information such as city, state or area code. Id. at col. 16:60
`
`– col. 17:6. The user is then assigned a unique identifier that identifies the user
`
`and is stored along with the user’s demographic information. Id. at col. 17:10-15.
`
`The software is then downloaded to the user’s computer, pre-loaded with
`
`advertisements targeted to the user’s demographic information. Id. at col. 17:17-
`
`23. The patent discloses that the user’s unique identifier can be included in a
`
`“cookie” that the server places on the user’s computer and that is sent whenever
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 22 of 71 PageID 383
`
`the computer transmits computer usage information, such that the identifier is used
`
`to associate the user with the computer usage information and the demographic
`
`information. Id. at col. 17:34-38.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘314 Patent
`ii.
`The ’314 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/699,705, filed
`
`October 30, 2000, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/118,351,
`
`filed on July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`Prior to any substantive examination in the parent application (09/118,351),
`
`the Examiner issued a Requirement for Restriction/Election of the claims into three
`
`groups. See Ex. 1006 at p. 179. Group I, which included claims 1-10, 21-25, and
`
`37-43, were elected without traverse by Applicants. See id. at pp. 175, 179. After
`
`amending the claims following a Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner issued a
`
`Notice of Allowance. See id. at p. 145. Parent application no. 09/118,351 issued
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`On October 30, 2000, Applicants filed divisional application no. 09/699,705
`
`(issued as the ’314 Patent) including claims 1-22. See Ex. 1005 at pp. 31, 69-73.
`
`Applicants did not include an IDS for the divisional application nor did they
`
`resubmit a listing of the IDS from the parent application. See M.P.E.P. § 609.02.
`
`Claims 1-10 of the divisional application (issued as the ’314 Patent)
`
`correspond to non-elected Group II, claims 11-20 of the restriction requirement in
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp Document 55-3 Filed 11/26/13 Page 23 of 71 PageID 384
`
`the parent application no. 09/118,351. Claims 11-22 of the divisional (issued as
`
`the ’314 Patent) correspond to non-elected Group III, claims 26-36 of the
`
`restriction requirement. Compare Ex. 1005 at pp. 69-73 with Ex. 1006 at 316-22.
`
`On May 5, 2003, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance that indicated
`
`claims 1-22 were allowed. See Ex. 1005 at p. 102. In the Notice of Allowance, the
`
`Examiner identified what he described as the “closest prior art” references that
`
`disclosed “a conventional Internet advertising system [including] a database, a
`
`controller, and an ad server operating as part of a web server and method with
`
`frequency of advertisement control.” See id. at pp. 99-100. The ’314 Patent issued
`
`on September 30, 2003. See Ex. 1001 at p. 1.
`
`b.
`
`Ground 1 – Logan Anticipates Claims 11, 12, 13, 18 and 20:
`i.
`Brief Overview of Logan
`Logan discloses an electronic information distribution system that
`
`selectively distributes personalized programming and advertising to subscribers
`
`based on user demogra