throbber
Trials @uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 38
`Date: March 14, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK,INC., ATLASSIAN CORP. PLC, ATLASSIAN,INC.,
`EXPEDIA, INC., HOMEAWAY.COM,INC.,
`PINTEREST, INC., SQUARESPACE,INC., WIX.COM, LTD.,
`WIX.COM,INC., and GOOGLE LLC, !
`Petitioners,
`
`V.
`
`EXPRESS MOBILEINC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, AARON W. MOORE,and
`RUSSELLE.CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`' Atlassian Corp. PLC., Atlassian, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Homeaway.com,Inc.,
`Pinterest, Inc., Squarespace, Inc., Wix.com, Ltd., and Wix.com,Inc., filed a
`motion for jomderand a petition in Case IPR2022-00783. Google LLCfiled
`a motion for joinder and a petition in Case IPR2022-00791. All of these
`parties have been joinedaspetitioners in IPR2021-01457.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this interpartes review, Facebook,Inc., Atlassian Corp. PLC.,
`
`Atlassian, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Homeaway.com,Inc., Pinterest, Inc.,
`
`Squarespace, Inc., Wix.com, Ltd., Wix.com,Inc., and Google LLC
`
`(collectively, “Petitioners”) challenge the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5—7,
`
`11, and 12 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, the “’044 patent’), which is assigned to Express Mobile, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner’).
`
`Wehavejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasonsthat
`
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shownby a preponderanceof the
`
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 5—7, 11, and 12 of the ’044 patent are
`
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. §316(e) (2018) (“In an inter partes review
`
`instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a
`
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderanceofthe evidence.”). This
`
`Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`Facebook,Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) challenging claims1,
`
`2, 5—7, 11, and 12 of the ’044 patent on the following grounds(Pet. 6-7):
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`1, 2,5-7, 12
`
`11
`
`1, 2, 5-7, 12
`
`Administration, Witkowski Anderson, Bowers, Jacobs,
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Anderson,” Bowers,’ Jacobs,
`Ambrose-Haynes,” and Geary®
`Anderson, Bowers, Jacobs,
`Ambrose-Haynes, Geary, and NFS
`Administration’
`
`103
`
`Ambrose-Haynes, Geary,
`Witkowski?
`
`Anderson, Bowers, Jacobs,
`Ambrose-Haynes, Geary, NFS
`
`Patent Ownerfiled a Preliminary Response. Paper6. Atrial was
`
`instituted on the asserted groundsof unpatentability. Paper 10 (“Dec.”) 68.
`
`Duringthetrial, Patent Ownerfiled a Patent Owner Response.
`
`Paper 17, “PO. Resp.” Petitionerfiled a Reply, and Patent Ownerfiled a
`
`Sur-reply. Paper 18 (“Reply”), Paper 25 (“Sur-reply”). With authorization
`
`2G. Anderson & P. Anderson, JAVA Studio Creator Field Guide, 2d ed.
`(Prentice Hall 2006) (Ex. 1003, “Anderson’’).
`3B. Bowers & S. Lane, Advanced FileMaker Pro 6 Web Development
`(Wordware Pub. 2003) (Ex. 1004, “Bowers”).
`4S. Jacobs, Foundation XMLfor Flash (Springer-Verlag 2006) (Ex. 1005,
`Jacobs”).
`> N. Ambrose-Hayneset al., Professional ColdFusion 5.0 (WroxPress. Ltd.
`2001) (Ex. 1006, “Ambrose-Haynes’”’).
`°D. Geary & C. Horstmann, Core JavaServer Faces (Sun Microsystems
`Press, Prentice Hall 2004) (Ex. 1011, “Geary”).
`7 Unix System V NFS Administration (D. Herman,ed., Prentice Hall 1993)
`(Ex. 1007, “NFS Admunistration’”).
`8 Witkowski etal., U.S. Patent No. 6,125,360, issued Sept. 26, 2006 (Ex.
`1013, “Witkowskr’).
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`from the Board, Petitioner and Patent Ownerfiled additional briefing
`
`addressing Patent Owner’s alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`Paper 26 (“PO Obj. Evid. Br.”); Paper 27 (“Pet. Obj. Evid. Resp. Br.”).
`
`After institution, Expedia, Inc., eBay Inc., Homeaway.com,Inc.,
`
`Squarespace, Inc., Wix.com, Ltd., and Wix.com,Inc. filed a motion for
`
`jomnderand a petition in IPR2022-00783. Google LLC filed a motion for
`
`joinderanda petition in IPR2022-00791. We joinedall of these parties as
`
`petitionersin this proceeding. Papers 21, 37.
`
`On December6, 2022, we conducted an oral hearing. A copy of the
`
`transcript (Paper 36, “Tr.”) is included in the record.
`
`Petitioner relies on testimony from Dr. Vyay K. Madisetti. Exs. 1002
`
`(Declaration), 1021 (Reply Declaration). Patent Ownerrelies on testimony
`
`from Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth. Exs. 2001 (Declaration), 2020 (Second
`
`Declaration). A record transcript for the deposition of Dr. Madisetti has
`
`been entered into the record. Ex. 2025.
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`The following are the identified real parties in interest on the
`
`petitioner side of the proceeding, accounting forall of the joined parties:
`
`Facebook,Inc., Atlassian Corp. PLC, Atlassian, Inc., Atlassian (UK)
`
`Limited, Atlassian (UK) Holdings Limited, Expedia, Inc., Homeaway.com,
`
`Inc., Expedia Group, Inc., VRBO Holdings, Inc., Pinterest, Inc.,
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`Squarespace, Inc., Wix.com, Ltd. and Wix.com,Inc. and Google LLC.
`
`Pet. 1; IPR2022-00783, Paper1 at 1; IPR2022-00791, Paper | at 1.
`
`Patent Owneridentifies itself as the real party in interest. Paper 3 at 1.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`Asrequired by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), the parties identify various
`
`related matters, including numerousdistrict court proceedings involving the
`
`°044 patent. Pet. 1-4; Paper 3, 1—4; IPR2022-00783, Paper 1 at 1—5;
`
`IPR2022-00791, Paper 1 at 1-5. Amongthe identified related matters are
`
`several interpartes matters involving the ’044 patent: IPR2021-01225 (“the
`
`*1225 IPR”), IPR2021-01146 (“the ’1146 IPR”), and IPR2021-00711 (“the
`
`°711 IPR”). Pet. 2; Paper3, 2.°
`
`D. The ’044 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’044 patentrelates to a platform for generating anddistributing
`
`programming to mobile devices over a network. Ex. 1001, Abs. The system
`
`includes a database of web services that can be obtained over a network, and
`
`an authoring tool “configured to define an object for presentation on the
`
`display, select a componentof a webservice includedin said database,
`
`associate said object with said selected component, and produce codethat,
`
`whenexecuted onthe platform, provides said selected componenton the
`
`display of the platform.” Jd. at 1:34-42. The Specification describes
`
`device-independentprograms(“Applications”) and device- or
`
`° Petitioner misidentifies several IPR matters as involving the ’044 patent,
`whichin fact involve different patents owned by Patent Owner. See Pet. 2
`(citing IPR2021-00700 (involving U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397); IPR2021-
`01144 (involving U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 (“the ’755 patent’’)); and
`IPR2021-01228 (involving the ’755 patent)). We view this misidenttfication
`as madvertenterror.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`platform-specific instructions (“Players’’) that are provided to user devices.
`
`Id. at 5:13-19. A Player transforms device-independentinstructionsof an
`
`Application into device-specific instructions that are executable by a user
`
`device to, for example, generate one or more pagesonthe display of the
`
`device. Id. at 5:60—63, 6:10—13. The disclosed system allows for
`
`Applications to provide webservice interaction and invocation to a device.
`
`Id. at 7:55-64.
`
`Figure 2A illustrates the interaction between system components, and
`
`is reproduced below.
`200
`
`oy
`
`Players - ™
`
`
`Authoring
`Platforrri
`
`
`
`
`
`Web Service
`|
`
`
`
`
`Fits. 2A
`
`Figure 2A is a schematic illustrating the communications
`between different system components. Ex. 1001, 2:21—23.
`
`‘
`f
`
`10
`
`
`spor
`Director
`ee
`
`Player
`
`/
`
`,
`
`~
`
`|
`}
`3
`
`iN
`Cone
`’
`sees
`dn
`
`ae :
`.
`Content
`“om
`Server
`
`Cantent
`Requask
`
`
`Prey
`HPTRASME f
`|
`Request
`
`anit
`Response
`
`230
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`Asillustrated in Figure 2A, authoring platform 110 may generate one
`
`or more Players, which are provided to response director 210.
`
`/d. at 8:15—
`
`17. Device 130 requests a Player from response director 210, and receives
`
`and installs the Player.
`
`/d. at 8:18—20. Web service 230 includesa plurality
`
`of services obtainable over the Internet. Jd. at 8:26—-27. Each webserviceis
`
`identified in an entry in web componentregistry 220. Id. at 8:27—30. Web
`
`componentregistry 220 is provided through server 120 to authoring platform
`
`110 so that a user of the authoring platform may bind webservices 230 to
`
`elements to be displayed on device 130.
`
`/d. at 8:30-34. A web component
`
`registry 220 for each registered webservice 230 is loaded into authoring
`
`platform 110. Jd. at 8:62—64. The userof the authoring platform can then
`
`assign components of any webservice 230 to an Application without any
`
`need to write code. Id. at 8:64—66.
`
`E.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent. Challenged claims
`
`2, 5—7, 11, and 12 depend from claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates the claimed subject matter:
`
`1. A system for generating code to provide content on a display
`of a device, said system comprising:
`computer memorystoring:
`
`a) symbolic names required for evoking one or more web
`componentseachrelated to a set of inputs and outputs
`of a webservice obtainable over a network, where the
`symbolic names are character strings
`that do not
`contain either a persistent address or pointer to an
`output value accessible to the web service, where each
`symbolic name has an associated data formatclass type
`corresponding to a subclass of User Interface (UD
`objects that support the data format
`type of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`symbolic name, and where each symbolic name has a
`preferred UI object, and
`b) anaddress of the web service;
`
`an authoring tool configuredto:
`define a (UI) object for presentation on the display,
`
`where said defined UI object corresponds to a web
`componentincluded in said computer memoryselected
`from a group consisting of an mput of the web service
`and an output of the web service, where each defined UI
`object is either:
`
`1) selected by a userof the authoring tool; or
`
`2) automatically selected by the system as the preferred
`UI object correspondingto the symbolic nameofthe
`web componentselected by the userof the authoring
`tool,
`
`access said computer memoryto select the symbolic name
`corresponding to the web componentof the defined UI
`object,
`
`associate the selected symbolic name with the defined UI
`object, where the selected symbolic name is only
`available to UI objects that support the defined data
`format associated with that symbolic name,
`
`store information representative of said defined UI object
`and related settings in a database;
`retrieve said information representative of said one or more
`said UI object settings stored in said database, and
`build an application consisting of one or more web page
`views from atleast a portion of said database utilizing
`at
`least one player, where said player utilizes
`information stored in said database to generate for the
`display of at least a portion of said one or more web
`pages,
`wherein when the application and player are provided to
`the device and executed on the device, and
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`whenthe user of the device provides one or more input
`values associated with an input symbolic name to an
`input of the defined UI object, the device provides the
`user provided one or more input
`values
`and
`corresponding input symbolic nameto the web service,
`the web service utilizes the input symbolic nameandthe
`user provided one or more input values for generating
`one or more output values having an associated output
`symbolic name,
`
`and the player receives the output symbolic name and
`corresponding one or more output values and provides
`mstructions for the display of the device to present an
`output value in the defined UI object.
`
`Ex. 1001, 37:48—38:40.
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles ofLaw
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences betweenthe claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’] Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including:
`
`(1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences betweenthe claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17-18 (1966).
`
`“In an [interpartes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challengesis
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`(requiring interpartes review petitions to identify “with particularity .
`
`.
`
`. the
`
`evidence that supports the groundsfor the challenge to each claim”)). This
`
`burden of persuasion nevershifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc. , 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(discussing the burden of proofin interpartes review).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skillin the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp.v.
`
`VST Int'l Inc. , 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383
`
`U.S. at 17-18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991)).
`
`Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Madisetti, Petitioner
`
`asserts:
`
`A person of ordinary skill as of April 2008 would have had
`at least a bachelor’s degree in software engineering, computer
`science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at
`least two years of experience in web-based software application
`development, including experience in developing software and
`systems for storing, retrieving, and transmitting information
`(such as text and images) over a computer network such as the
`Internet (or equivalent degree or experience).
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 { 16).
`
`Patent Ownerdoesnot proposean alternative assessment. See PO
`
`Resp. We note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, describes the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art similarly to the assessmentoffered by
`
`Petitioner. See Ex. 2001] 31.
`
`Having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we
`
`adopt Petitioner’s definition above, as we did initially in the Institution
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`Decision,as it is consistent with the ’044 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In interpreting the claims of the ’044 patent, we “us[e] the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” See 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) (2021). The
`
`claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written
`
`description and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.;
`
`Phillipsv. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312—14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Neither party proposes any terms for construction. Petitioner notes
`
`some constructions of certain terms that were proposedbythe parties in
`
`underlyinglitigation involving the ’044 patent,'° butstatesthat “Petitioner
`
`doesnot believe express claim construction is necessaryat this time.”
`
`Pet. 11-12.
`
`Patent Owneralso does not propose any constructions, but asserts that
`
`Petitioner’s argumentsare inconsistent with the construction of “device-
`
`independent,” which Patent Ownerstates was “proposed by Petitioner” in
`
`the district court “and agreed to by the parties.” PO Resp. 2 (emphasis
`
`omitted). In particular, Patent Ownerstates that “the term ‘device-
`
`‘0 The parties include Patent Ownerand several defendants(including
`Petitioner as well as Expedia, eBay, Google, and Atlassian). See Ex. 2009.
`Theunderlying district court litigation was originally filed in the Western
`District of Texas, and that is where the parties submitted their claim
`construction briefing. See id. Before the court entered a final claim
`construction order, however, the case wastransferred to the Northern
`District of California. See Pet. 1; Paper3, 2.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`independent code’ has been construed by a district court to mean ‘code that
`
`is not specific to the operating system, programminglanguage, or platform
`
`of a device.’” /d. at 13 (citing Ex. 2021, 15—16; Ex. 2022, 10). Petitioner
`
`doesnot challenge this construction or offer a competing construction, but
`
`does disagree with Patent Owner’s application of this construction, as
`
`discussed further herein. See Reply 2—12; see also infra § I1.E.1.a.(3)(g).
`
`Asthe parties do not disagree with the District Court’s construction,
`
`we adoptit for use in this proceeding. We address Petitioner’s arguments
`
`about the application of the construction in the course of the validity
`
`analysis. See infra § IL.E.1.a.(3)(g).
`
`Wedeterminethat no explicit construction of any other termsis
`
`neededto resolvethe issues presented by the arguments and evidence of
`
`record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean MotorCo., 868
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be
`
`construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”(quoting
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc. ,200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999))).
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`D. Overview ofCited References
`
`I, Anderson (Ex. 1003)
`Andersonis an excerpt from a book published in 2006. Ex. 1003, 4.1!
`
`Petitioner asserts that Anderson is prior art because it was published before
`
`April 2008. Pet. 16. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Sylvia Hall-
`
`Ellis, Ph.D., who providesadditional details as to the publication and public
`
`availability of Anderson. Ex. 1015 {J 43-49.
`
`Weevaluated the evidence submitted by Petitionerat the institution
`
`stage and determinedthat Petitioner had shownsufficiently for purposes of
`
`mstitution that Anderson qualifies as a printed publication. See Inst. Dec.
`
`18-19 (citing Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039,
`
`Paper 29 at 16 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential)). Patent Owner does
`
`not challenge Petitioner’s showing or ourinitial determination.
`
`See generally PO Resp.
`
`Wedetermine, based onthe full record of the proceeding,that
`
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that Anderson was
`
`publicly accessible beforethe critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus
`
`Petitioner has established that the reference qualifies as a printed
`
`publication. In particular, the face of Anderson bears a copyright date of
`
`2006, a publication date of May 2006, an ISBN (“International Standard
`
`Book Number”), and identifies an established publisher (Prentice Hall).
`
`Ex. 1003, 4. See Hulu at 19 (noting that Petitioner had metits burden
`
`sufficiently for institution by submitting a copy ofa reference that bore “a
`
`'l References to page numbersfor this exhibit are to the page numbersas
`providedby Petitioner on the exhibit.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`copyright date of 1990, a printing date of November1992, and an ISBN date
`
`of 8/94,” and waspart of “a textbook from an established publisher . .. and a
`
`well-knownbookseries”). Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Exhibit 1003 is a true
`
`and correct copyof the selected pages from the bookas held by the Library
`
`of Congress, and also attests that the book was publicly available by or
`
`shortly after June 28, 2007, because by that date it had been received,
`
`cataloged, and indexed at the Library of Congress and madepart of the
`
`Online Computer Library Center’s (“OCLC’s”) bibliographic database.
`
`Ex. 1015 43, 49; see id. [28 (describing OCLC).
`
`Anderson is an excerpt from a bookdescribing a software
`
`development tool known asJava Studio Creator (or “Creator”’), which
`
`developers mayuseto create web applications. Ex. 1003, 35. For example,
`
`Andersondescribes a Java application (Google1) that allows users to enter a
`
`search query and then access a Google web service (using a methodcalled
`
`doGoogleSearch) to perform a search based on that query.
`
`/d. at 285,289.
`
`Anderson also describes how to design the user interface for such
`
`application, including incorporating the Google logo, a text field entry box,
`
`and a search button, and to interface with Google’s serversto utilize Google
`
`webservices to perform the search anddisplay the results.
`
`/d. at 286—288.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`2. Bowers (Ex. 1004)
`Bowersis an excerpt from a booktitled “Advanced FileMaker® Pro 6
`
`Web Development,” published in 2003. Ex. 1004, 3.'* Petitioner asserts
`
`that Bowers1s prior art because it was published before April 2008. Pet. 16.
`
`Petitioneralso relies on the Declaration of Dr. Hall-Ellis, who provides
`
`additional details as to the publication and public availability of Bowers.
`
`Ex. 1015 {| 50-57.
`
`Weevaluated the evidence submitted by Petitionerat the institution
`
`stage and determinedthat Petitioner had shownsufficiently for purposesof
`
`institution that Bowers qualifies as a printed publication. See Dec. 20.
`
`Patent Ownerdoes not challenge Petitioner’s showingor ourinitial
`
`determination. See PO Resp.
`
`Wedetermine, based onthe full record of the proceeding,that
`
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that Bowers was
`
`publicly accessible beforethe critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus
`
`Petitioner has established that the reference qualifies as a printed
`
`publication. In particular, the face of Bowers bears a copyright date of 2003,
`
`a publication date of 2003, and an ISBN,andidentifies an established
`
`publisher (Wordware Publishing). Ex. 1004, 3; see Hulu at 19. Dr. Hall-
`
`Ellis testifies that Exhibit 1004 is a true and correct copy of the selected
`
`pages from the bookasheld by the Library of Congress, and also attests that
`
`the book waspublicly available by or shortly after April 19, 2004, because
`
`by that date it had been received, cataloged, and indexed at the Library of
`
`References to page numbersfor this exhibit are to the page numbersas
`providedby Petitioner on the exhibit.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`Congress and madepart of the OCLC bibliographic database. Ex. 1015
`
`{4 50, 56.
`
`Bowersdescribes techniques for developing webapplications using
`
`FileMaker Pro, acommercially-available database software program.
`
`Ex. 1004, 68-121. Bowers describes the GoogleSearch web service—the
`
`sameservice discussed in Anderson—as a concrete example of how to
`
`mcorporate a webservice into an application.
`
`/d. at 97-110.
`
`3. Jacobs (Ex. 1005)
`
`Jacobsis an excerpt from a booktitled “Foundation XML for Flash,”
`
`published in 2006. Ex. 1005, 3.!3 Petitioner asserts that Jacobsis prior art
`
`becauseit was published before April 2008. Pet. 16. Petitioneralso relies
`
`on the Declaration of Dr. Hall-Ellis, who provides additionaldetails as to the
`
`publication and public availability of Jacobs. Ex. 1015 §{[ 58-65.
`
`Weevaluated the evidence submitted by Petitionerat the institution
`
`stage and determinedthat Petitioner had shownsufficiently for purposes of
`
`istitution that Jacobs qualifies as a printed publication. See Dec. 21-22.
`
`Patent Ownerdoes not challenge Petitioner’s showingor ourinitial
`
`determination. See PO Resp.
`
`Wedetermine, based onthe full record of the proceeding,that
`
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that Jacobs was
`
`publicly accessible beforethe critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus
`
`Petitioner has established that the reference qualifies as a printed
`
`publication. In particular, the face of Jacobs bears a copyright date of 2006,
`
`'3 References to page numbersfor this exhibit are to the page numbersas
`providedby Petitioner on the exhibit.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`an ISBN,andidentifies an established publisher (Springer-Verlag).
`
`Ex. 1005, 3. See Hulu at 19. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Exhibit 1005 is a
`
`true and correct copy of the selected pages from the book as held by the
`
`Library of Congress, and also attests that the book was publicly accessible
`
`shortly after November 15, 2005, whenit was received, catalogued, and
`
`indexed in the Langsam Library at the University of Cincinnati. Ex. 1015
`
`{al 58-65.
`
`Jacobs describes techniques for developing webapplications using a
`
`technology known as Flash. Ex. 1005, 16. Like Anderson and Bowers,
`
`Jacobsincludes a discussion of how to incorporate webservices into a web
`
`application.
`
`/d. at 101—106. Jacobs explains that an industry standard
`
`technology knownasthe Simple Object Access Protocol (““SOAP”’) is used
`
`to specify the messages exchanged between a webservice and a third party
`
`application that uses the web service. Jd. at 65, 102. Jacobs showsan
`
`example of messages exchanged using SOAP in connection with the
`
`GoogleSearch webservice, and in particular, to runa search.
`
`/d. at 102—
`
`106.
`
`4. Ambrose-Haynes(Ex. 1006)
`Ambrose-Haynesis an excerpt from a booktitled “Professional
`
`ColdFusion 5.0,” published in 2001. Ex. 1006, 6.'4 Petitionerassertsthat
`
`Ambrose-Haynesis prior art becauseit was published before April 2008.
`
`Pet. 16. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Hall-Ellis, who
`
`provides additional details as to the publication and public availability of
`
`4 References to page numbersfor this exhibit are to the page numbersas
`providedby Petitioner on the exhibit.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`Ambrose-Haynes. Ex. 1015 J 66—73. Patent Ownerdoesnotdispute the
`
`prior-art status of Ambrose-Haynes.
`
`Weevaluated the evidence submitted by Petitionerat the institution
`
`stage and determinedthat Petitioner had shownsufficiently for purposes of
`
`mstitution that Ambrose-Haynesqualifies as a printed publication.
`
`See Dec. 22—23. Patent Ownerdoesnot challenge Petitioner’s showing or
`
`our initial determination. See PO Resp.
`
`Wedetermine, based onthe full record of the proceeding,that
`
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that Ambrose-
`
`Haynes waspublicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged
`
`patent, and, thus Petitioner has established that the reference qualifies as a
`
`printed publication. In particular, the face of Ambrose-Haynesbearsa
`
`copyright date of 2001 and an ISBN. Ex. 1006, 6. See Hulu at 19. Dr. Hall-
`
`Ellis testifies that Exhibit 1006 1s a true and correct copy of the selected
`
`pages from the bookasheld by the Library of Congress, and also attests that
`
`the book waspublicly available by or shortly after August 2, 2001, whenit
`
`wasreceived, catalogued, and indexed in the Multnomah CountyLibrary in
`
`Portland, Oregon. Ex. 1015 J] 66-72.
`
`Ambrose-Haynesdescribes a Java Virtual Machine (““JVM’’), which is
`
`responsible for carrying out execution of Java applications. Ex. 1006, 55.
`
`Ambrose-Haynesexplains that “JVMsare written for each operating
`
`platform”; therefore, “[e]xecuting the code through a JVM solves the
`
`problem of portability, smce JVMsare written for each operating platform.
`
`In this wayit is the JVM whichis linked to the operating system, and
`
`handlesall of the platform-specific details, while the source code [written]
`
`for interpretation is platform independent.” Jd.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`5. NFS Administration (Ex. 1007)
`NFS Administration comprises selections from a booktitled “UNIX®
`
`System V NFS Administration.” Ex. 1007, 1—3.!° Petitioner asserts that
`
`NFS Administration is prior art because it was published before April 2008.
`
`Pet. 16. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Hall-Ellis, who
`
`provides additional details as to the publication and public availability of
`
`NFS Administration. Ex. 1015 {] 74-81.
`
`Weevaluated the evidence submitted by Petitionerat the institution
`
`stage and determinedthat Petitioner had shownsufficiently for purposes of
`
`mstitution that NFS Administration qualifies as a printed publication.
`
`See Dec. 24. Patent Ownerdoesnot challenge Petitioner’ s showing or our
`
`initial determination. See PO Resp.
`
`Wedetermine, based onthe full record of the proceeding,that
`
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that NFS
`
`Administration waspublicly accessible before the critical date of the
`
`challenged patent, and, thus Petitioner has established that the reference
`
`qualifies as a printed publication. In particular, the face of NFS
`
`Administration bears a copyright date of 1993, Library of Congress
`
`publication data, including an ISBN,andidentifies an established publisher
`
`(Prentice Hall). Ex. 1007,3. See Huluat 19. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that
`
`Exhibit 1007is a true and correct copyof the selected pages from the book
`
`as held by the Library of Congress, and also attests that the book was
`
`publicly available by or shortly after November 23, 1992, because by that
`
`'S References to page numbersfor this exhibit are to the page numbersas
`providedby Petitioner on the exhibit.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`date it had been received, cataloged, and indexed in the Library of Congress
`
`and madeapart of the OCLC bibliographic database. Ex. 1015 J 74-80.
`
`NFS Administration describes a technology known as the Network
`
`File System (“NFS”). Ex. 1007, 10. NFS providesfor a distributedfile
`
`system that allows a computerto access files from remote storage over a
`
`computer network,such as a server connected to the Internet. Id. “NFS
`
`enables machinesof different architectures running different operating
`
`systems to share resources across a network.” Id.
`
`6. Geary (Ex. 1011)
`
`Geary is an excerpt from a booktitled “Core JavaServer Faces,”
`
`published in 2004. Ex. 1011, 3.'° Petitioner asserts that Gearyis prior art
`
`becauseit was published before April 2008. Pet. 16. Petitioneralso relies
`
`on the Declaration of Dr. Hall-Ellis, who provides additional details as to the
`
`publication and public availability of Geary. Ex. 1015 {][ 82-89.
`
`Weevaluated the evidence submitted by Petitionerat the institution
`
`stage and determinedthat Petitioner had shownsufficiently for purposes of
`
`mstitution that Geary qualifies as a printed publication. See Dec. 25—26.
`
`Patent Ownerdoesnot challenge Petitioner’s showingor our initial
`
`determination. See PO Resp.
`
`Wedetermine, based onthe full record of the proceeding,that
`
`Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that Geary was
`
`publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus
`
`Petitioner has established that the reference qualifies as a printed
`
`‘6 References to page numbersfor this exhibit are to the page numbersas
`providedby Petitioner on the exhibit.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`publication. In particular, the face of Geary bears a copyright date of 2004
`
`and an ISBN,andidentifies an established publisher (Prentice Hall). Ex.
`
`1011, 3. See Hulu at 19. Dr. Hall-Ellis testifies that Exhibit 1011 is a true
`
`and correct copyof the selected pages from the bookas held by the Library
`
`of Congress, and also attests that the book was publicly available by or
`
`shortly after October 20, 2004, becauseby that date it had been received,
`
`catalogued, and indexed in The Chinese University of Hong Kong and made
`
`a part of the OCLC bibliographic database. Ex. 1015 {J 82, 88.
`
`Geary describes a technology known as JavaServer Faces (“JSF”).
`
`Ex. 1011, 1. Geary explains that JSF providesa specification for building
`
`and incorporating user interface components into web applications using
`
`Java, including text fields, checkboxes, and buttons.
`
`/d. at 81. Geary also
`
`discloses standard Java classes for building user interfaces for web
`
`applications, including UIOutput and UIInput which, respectively, handle
`
`output to and input from the user.
`
`/d. at 29.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01457
`Patent 9,928,044 B2
`
`7. Witkowski (Ex. 1013)
`
`Witkowskidiscloses a database system, and moreparticularly the
`
`maintenance of materialized viewsthat contain one-to-n lossless joins. Ex.
`
`1013, 1:15—17. Petitioner relies on Witkowsk1’s teaching of known
`
`relational database technologies, including disclosure that “data is stored in
`
`one or more data containers, each container contains records, and the data
`
`within each record is organized into one or morefields.” Pet. 87; Ex. 1013,
`
`1:20—25.
`
`E. Analysis
`
`I. Ground 1: Obviousness ofClaims 1, 2, 5—7, and 12 over
`Anderson, Bowers, Jacobs, Ambrose-Haynes, and Geary
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1, 2, 5—7, and 12 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Anderson, Bowers,
`
`Jacobs, Ambrose-Haynes, and Geary. P

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket