UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01011
`Patent 9,639,876
`___________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`PAGE
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OVERVIEW OF MOORE .............................................................................. 1
`A. Moore teaches a corresponding overall visual appearance. .................. 1
`1.
`Moore teaches applying common look-and-feel elements
`to both Storefront and Buy Pages. .............................................. 2
`Moore teaches that both Storefront and Buy Pages are
`generated by the Store-Builder Server. ....................................... 3
`Moore teaches applying common style components to
`both Storefront and Buy Pages. .................................................. 5
`The Development Tool teaches design of common elements of
`web pages in a single section. ............................................................... 6
`The Buy Pages of Moore are not limited to information
`contained with the Price URL. .............................................................. 7
`Location of the Price URLs does not matter. ........................................ 9
`D.
`E. Moore did disclose all web pages having a consistent look and
`feel. ...................................................................................................... 10
`F. Moore’s design controls are consistent. .............................................. 11
`G. Moore’s disclosure of Figure 16 does not exclude other look
`and feel options including common headers and footers from
`Buy Pages. ........................................................................................... 12
`Dr. Shamos’ statements made during his deposition are
`consistent with how a POSITA would read the totality of the
`teachings of Moore. ............................................................................. 13
`1.
`FIG. 16 ...................................................................................... 13
`2.
`Background controls ................................................................. 15
`3.
`Subsection (6b) ......................................................................... 15
`4.
`Price URL ................................................................................. 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`H.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page ii
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Moore discloses the commission limitations of dependent
`claims 4 and 14. ................................................................................... 18
`Moore teaches the hierarchical-page electronic catalog
`limitations of dependent claims 7 and 17. ........................................... 19
`K. Moore teaches the catalog-searching limitations of dependent
`claims 8 and 18. ................................................................................... 20
`Ground 3: Adding Arnold to Moore obviates claims 7 and 17. .......... 22
`L.
`M. Ground 4: The Digital River Publications teach corresponding
`overall visual appearance. ................................................................... 23
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page iv
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description (Previously Submitted)
`
`1019
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 (‘876 Patent)
`1001
`Declaration of Michael Shamos
`1002
`Declaration of James Pichler
`1003
`Digital River Brochure (Brochure)
`1004
`Digital River April 1997 Website (April 1997 Website)
`1005
`Digital River December 1997 Website (December 1997 Website)
`1006
`1007 Web Page of Corel, a Digital River customer (July 1998)
`1008 Web Page of 21 Software Drive, a Digital River customer (April 1998)
`1009 Web Page of 21 Software Drive, a Digital River customer (April 1998)
`1010
`U.S. Patent No. 6,330,575 (Moore)
`1011
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,504 (Arnold)
`1012
`RESERVED
`1013
`RESERVED
`1014
`RESERVED
`1015
`RESERVED
`1016
`RESERVED
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 773 F.3d 1245 (2014)
`1017
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`1018
`0013987, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,374, U.S. Patent No.
`6,993,572, April 16, 2010
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`0013988, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,375, U.S. Patent No.
`6,629,135, April 16, 2010
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Office Manager at the Internet Archive
`Definition of “commission” – The American Heritage Collegiate
`Dictionary 280 (Robert B. Costello et al. eds., 3rd ed. 1997)
`Definition of “commission” – Webster’s New World Basic Dictionary of
`American English 167-168 (Michael Agnes et al. eds., 1998)
`Redlined Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to the November 15, 2018 Scheduling Order (Paper 13), Shopify,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) submits its reply to Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.120 (Paper 20) (“Response”).
`
`The Institution Decision (Paper 12) (“Decision”) found that Petitioner
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenges to Claims 1-5, 7,
`
`8, 11-15, 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF MOORE
`A. Moore teaches a corresponding overall visual appearance.
`Moore teaches providing a corresponding overall visual appearance to all
`
`web pages because Moore discloses applying common look-and-feel elements,
`
`including headers and footers, to the Storefront and Buy pages designed by the
`
`Development Tool. Moore’s disclosure is clear that all web pages are generated by
`
`a single tool running on the Store-Builder Server. Further, Moore teaches applying
`
`common style elements to all web pages, not only a subset of the pages designed
`
`by a portion of the Development Tool.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 2
`
`1. Moore teaches applying common look-and-feel elements to
`both Storefront and Buy Pages.
`Moore teaches providing visual correspondence between pages by applying
`
`common look-and-feel elements to both Storefront and Buy Pages. The common
`
`look-and-feel elements would include common headers, footers, logos, and page
`
`styles. That process is described in Moore at column 10, line 59 to column 11, line
`
`50. Moore is describing configuring the Java servlet that creates web pages. That
`
`causes web pages to have visual correspondence. Later, Moore describes the
`
`Development Tool as designing individualized web pages. Ex. 1010, 11:51-61.
`
`No distinction is made between Storefront and Buy Pages, and creating the special
`
`characteristics of the Buy Pages. Id. at 12:1-36.
`
`Specifically, Moore describes creating a default header and footer under the
`
`“Building a Page” subheading of the description of the Development Tool. Moore
`
`explains that “[t]he page header and footer are typically used for the company
`
`name and logo” as well as “[a]n email address and a link URL.” Id. at 11:5-7.
`
`Moore makes no distinction between Storefront and Buy Pages in this section
`
`because default headers and footers apply to all pages. Moore goes on to describe
`
`defining default backgrounds, which may include a color and image, and page
`
`styles or templates for the pages. Id. at 11:16-50. Individual web pages may,
`
`thereafter, be changed, but, by default, they start out with a common look and feel.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 3
`
`Id. at 11:37-61 (describing changing individual pages). Having web pages that
`
`look different is the exception, not the rule.
`
`Moreover, Moore teaches that Java servlets on the Store Builder Server
`
`generate both the storefront and the buy pages. For example, Moore explains that
`
`“[t]he Store Builder Server 402 would also contain Java servlets that would receive
`
`the HTML from the wizard applet for the storefront pages that the merchant
`
`designed and would build the store pages.” Id. at 5:55-59. Similarly, Moore
`
`explains “[t]he Store-Builder Server receives that price URL, which is encrypted,
`
`and a Java “Buy Page” servlet builds a Buy Page.” Id. at 6:23-25. Moore goes on
`
`to describe that “[a] price URL is a link to the Java servlets residing … on the
`
`Store Builder Server and can be attached to any style component.” Id. at 12:5-8
`
`(emphasis added). Moore explicitly allows a user to change the Java class that
`
`defines the look-and-feel of the web pages or not. Id. at 12:55-58. If the user
`
`elects to leave the Java class alone, the Storefront and Buy pages have a consistent
`
`look-and-feel.
`
`2. Moore teaches that both Storefront and Buy Pages are
`generated by the Store-Builder Server.
`The same server generates Storefront and Buy Pages using Java servlet
`
`technology. It is wishful thinking to believe that the Storefront and Buy Pages
`
`would look different when they are designed using the same Development Tool
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 4
`
`and generated using the same Java servlet technology running on a single server.
`
`FIG. 1 depicts “a non-distributed electronic commerce system for the World Wide
`
`Web (‘WWW’), according to the prior art.” Id. at 3:47-49. Moore explains that
`
`the system disclosed in FIG. 1 includes “the three functions of product
`
`presentation, database management, and transaction processing [] contained in one
`
`server 108 and are, therefore, not distributed.” Id. at 4:24-27. Because all the
`
`pages are created and served from the same server, the look-and-feel, would be
`
`consistent throughout all the pages.
`
`Both the Storefront and Buy Pages are created on the Store-Builder server.
`
`The key difference between Moore’s invention and the prior art is that in Moore,
`
`all the Web pages are generated on the same server, but some of those web pages,
`
`the Storefront Pages, are generated ahead of time and are hosted on another server
`
`for later access. See e.g., id. at 5:55-59, 6:24-25. Through use of the Development
`
`Tool, the Store-Builder Server publishes “Web storefront pages wherever the
`
`merchant designates.” Id. at 11:62-67. Whereas in the case of the Buy Pages, the
`
`same Store Builder Server uses a Java servlet to generate the Buy Page upon
`
`request. Id. at 12:3-24.
`
`Using Java servlets, informed by style components, to generate web pages
`
`from the same server will result in pages having the same look at feel. Especially
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 5
`
`here, where the Development Tool is disclosed as applying those look and feel
`
`elements, including headers, footers, default backgrounds, and pages styles, across
`
`all web pages as a default.
`
`3. Moore teaches applying common style components to both
`Storefront and Buy Pages.
`Moore teaches that both Storefront Pages and Buy Pages can include any
`
`style components. For example, Moore states that “[a] price URL is a link to the
`
`Java servlets residing, in the preferred embodiment, on the Store Builder Server
`
`and can be attached to any style component.” Id. at 12:5-8 (emphasis added). The
`
`Store Builder Server is where information about the Buy Pages is stored and where
`
`they are created. Moore defines a “style component” as “all of the different
`
`content-related objects (‘style components’).” Id. at 11:29-30. Moore further
`
`states that “FIGS. 11-13 show dialog boxes for image, text, and multimedia style
`
`components.” Id. at 11:42-44 (emphasis added). Moreover, “[s]tyle components
`
`can be added, deleted, moved, resized, etc.” Id. at 11:51-52. Finally, Moore
`
`indicates that style components “can be changed by the merchant for any page.”
`
`Id. at 11:33 (emphasis added).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 6
`
`B.
`
`The Development Tool teaches design of common elements of web
`pages in a single section.
`It is natural for the description of Moore’s Development Tool to provide a
`
`supplemental description of the additional, specialized functionality of a Buy Page.
`
`Moore discloses a Development Tool that allows a user to create a default overall
`
`appearance or template for web pages including a category of site (first step),
`
`default header and footers (second step), default background (third step), and to fill
`
`in the content for each of the style components (fourth step). Id. at 10:44-11:50.
`
`Moore goes on to describe individualizing pages (both Storefront and Buy, no
`
`distinction is made). Id. at 11:51-61. Finally, after discussing publication of the
`
`Storefront Pages that have been created, (Id. at 11:62-67), Moore describes a
`
`special type of page, the Buy Pages, which require further customization. Id. at
`
`12:1-32.
`
`Both Storefront and Buy types of pages are still web pages, they share many
`
`of the same characteristics, including headers, footers, backgrounds, and templates
`
`(Id. at 11:4-50), but Buy Pages have some additional, specialized attributes.
`
`Moore explains that the Development Tool “allows the merchant to create his Web
`
`storefront.” Id. at 7:52-53. Moore further adds that the “Store Builder Server then
`
`publishes the Web storefront at a site of the merchant’s choosing.” Id. at 7:55-56.
`
`In contrast, the Buy Page is constructed when the Store-Builder Server “receives
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 7
`
`the price URL…and a Java ‘Buy Page’ servlet builds a Buy Page from the received
`
`HTML 508.” Id. at 6:23-25. Moore makes it clear that the Web Storefront is
`
`hosted “at a site of the merchant’s choosing” whereas the Buy Page is hosted at the
`
`Store-Builder Server.
`
`Further, Moore does not teach uploading for the Buy Pages like it does for
`
`Storefront Pages because Storefront Pages are static pages that reside on the
`
`Storefront server whereas the Buy Pages are generated dynamically on the fly by
`
`the Java servlet. Moore explains that when the “Store-Builder Server receives the
`
`price URL…a Java “Buy Page” servlet builds a Buy Page from the received
`
`HTML 508.” Id. at 6:23-25. The dynamic content, price, and description are
`
`provided in the URL, the look and feel, including common header and footer
`
`information, is maintained on the Store-Builder Server.
`
`C.
`
`The Buy Pages of Moore are not limited to information contained
`with the Price URL.
`Patent Owner’s contention that the maximum length of a URL limits what
`
`can be included in a Buy Page is wrong. Patent Owner takes this position to
`
`convince the Board that the Buy Page cannot include a header or footer. Patent
`
`Owner seems confused as to whether the price URL contains some information or
`
`all of the information required to build a Buy Page. A careful reading of Moore
`
`proves Patent Owner’s undoing and demonstrates that the price URL does not
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 8
`
`literally contain all the information necessary to build a Buy Page. Moore
`
`explicitly states that “[t]he price URL has attached an encrypted message that
`
`contains a text description of the item for sale, including a picture, its costs,
`
`quantity of measure, the merchant’s ID, [and] several fields used to customize the
`
`Buy Page that is created from the attached data.” Id. at 12:13-17 (emphasis added).
`
`The URL identifies the Java servlet, which includes the Java class configured
`
`through use of the Development Tool, which includes headers, footers, background
`
`and other data. Id. at 10:59-11:50. These “several fields used to customize the
`
`Buy Page” include identifiers, which can be used to alter the default look and feel
`
`of the particular host’s default page, which is generated by the identified Java
`
`servlet. As Moore expressly discloses, the Price URL is “a link to the Java servlets
`
`residing … on the Store Builder Server and can be attached to any style
`
`component.” Id. at 12:5-8. The URL itself is a link to a servlet that includes look
`
`and feel information or, as referred to by Moore, a “style component.”
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner correctly recognizes that “practical limitations
`
`existed in 1998 (Moore’s filing date) on the quantity of data that a URL can
`
`‘contain.’” See IPR2018-01011 Patent Owner’s Response, 17. But then Patent
`
`Owner ignores this very limitation and insists that every piece of information that
`
`is used in the Buy Page is embedded into the price URL. Patent Owner fails to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 9
`
`acknowledge that at the time of the Moore Patent, scripts were used in an attempt
`
`to create dynamic and interactive HTML pages. See Ex. 1002, 46. Programmers
`
`would use a scripting language, such as JavaScript, which would contain
`
`programming instructions to make static HTML pages more dynamic and
`
`interactive. Id. With JavaScript the URL would often include a number of
`
`variables that were used as input to the script. Knowing the limitation of the length
`
`of URLs, pointers to information, and not the information itself, would be
`
`embedded in the URL. Dr. Shamos correctly pointed this out during his
`
`deposition, but Patent Owner refuses to acknowledge this fact and instead wastes
`
`time trying to prove that it may indeed be possible to embed all the necessary
`
`elements for a very primitive web page. See Ex. 2027, 41:9-25. That does not
`
`matter.
`
`Location of the Price URLs does not matter.
`D.
`Patent Owner’s argument that Moore doesn’t care where the price URLs are
`
`posted does not suggest a lack of concern or disclosure of making the visual
`
`appearances of Storefront Pages and a Buy Page correspond. For example, Patent
`
`Owner appears to suggest that Moore was promoting scaled down Buy Pages
`
`because “[p]opular text-only viewers such as Lynx do not have graphical HTML
`
`capabilities.” See IPR2018-01011 Patent Owner’s Response, 19. However,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 10
`
`Lynx’s lack of graphical HTML capabilities did not prevent it from rendering web
`
`pages that included graphical HTML capabilities. Lynx would simply ignore these
`
`features and render only the text-based features. See Ex. 1010, 2:65-3:4.
`
`E. Moore did disclose all web pages having a consistent look and feel.
`Patent Owner’s argument that Moore would have mentioned having the Buy
`
`Page match the Storefront Pages if he had wanted to teach that does not suggest a
`
`lack of concern or disclosure of making the visual appearances of Storefront Pages
`
`and a Buy Page correspond.
`
`Patent Owner contends that “it was [not] conventional at the time to design
`
`web pages with common appearance across different websites, as opposed to
`
`within the same website, and particularly not between a statically stored website
`
`and a page (like the Buy Page) that is dynamically generated by a different server.”
`
`See IPR2018-01011 Patent Owner’s Response, 20. However, as previously
`
`discussed, Moore repeatedly indicates that it is the Store Build Server that
`
`generates both the Storefront Pages and the Buy Pages using the same process – a
`
`Java servlet – and the same design tool – the Development Tool. Moore also goes
`
`to great lengths to define default headers, footers, backgrounds, and templates. Ex.
`
`1010, 11:4-50. Only after defining the common look and feel, does Moore
`
`describe that a merchant “can” change the default characteristics. Id. at 11:50-61.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 11
`
`Moore discloses designing the Buy and Storefront Pages as having a matching look
`
`and feel. The web pages are generated by the Java servlet technology on a single
`
`server, and not by different servers as Patent Owner erroneously contends.
`
`F. Moore’s design controls are consistent.
`Patent Owner’s argument that in some instances Moore seems to teach
`
`redundant and thus potentially contradictory controls does not suggest a lack of
`
`concern or disclosure of making the visual appearances of Storefront Pages and a
`
`Buy Page correspond. On the contrary, Moore’s controls are not redundant and
`
`thus not contradictory because the controls are used to create individual pages,
`
`which may depart from the default style. Moore points out that “[t]he default
`
`background may be separately changed by the merchant for any particular page.”
`
`Id. at 11:25-26. In the wizard for Buy Pages, Moore is allowing the background
`
`for that particular page to be changed. It makes this disclosure because it wants to
`
`give the user an option to change the default as it expressly discloses. Id. at 11:51-
`
`61. Further, Moore notes that “[a]lthough the positions and sizes of the style
`
`components are defined by the style, they can be changed by the merchant for any
`
`page.” Id. at 11:30-32. If Moore taught that these style components could be
`
`changed only for the Storefront Pages, Moore would have indicated that. Instead,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 12
`
`Moore is touting the flexibility of the Development Tool and is not restricting that
`
`flexibility to just the Storefront Pages.
`
`G. Moore’s disclosure of Figure 16 does not exclude other look and
`feel options including common headers and footers from Buy
`Pages.
`Patent Owner’s argument that because Moore discloses only one dialog page
`
`to define the Buy Page, which has controls only sufficient to generate FIG. 16 does
`
`not suggest a lack of concern or disclosure of making the visual appearances of
`
`Storefront Pages and a Buy Page correspond.
`
`First, FIG. 16 is a generic example of a Buy Page that can be generated by
`
`the dialog disclosed in FIG. 15, and by no means demonstrates the whole
`
`functionality of the dialog or the Development Tool. Further, the scrollbar on the
`
`side of FIG. 16 indicates that only the center of the page is in view, not the headers
`
`and footers.
`
`Second, as previously discussed, because Moore teaches changing the
`
`underlying Java class that defines the look and feel for the pages produced by the
`
`Development Tool, including Buy Pages and Storefront Pages, all pages have a
`
`similar look and feel. Id. at 12:55-58.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 13
`
`H.
`
`Dr. Shamos’ statements made during his deposition are consistent
`with how a POSITA would read the totality of the teachings of
`Moore.
`Patent Owner attempts to distract from the issues by criticizing Dr. Shamos’
`
`answers to discrete, disparate parts of Moore that Dr. Shamos was asked at his
`
`deposition1. Patent Owner accuses Dr. Shamos of making statements that are
`
`“rank speculation” and contradict the explicit teachings of Moore. Patent Owner
`
`further avers that Dr. Shamos’ “‘answers’ do not bear scrutiny,” yet Patent Owner
`
`spends several pages scrutinizing them without showing any credible faults. In
`
`those several pages, Patent Owner fails to explain how any of Dr. Shamos’
`
`statements are “rank speculation,” nor how they contradict the explicit teachings of
`
`Moore. At his deposition, as a POSITA at the time of the invention, Dr. Shamos
`
`explained how a POSITA would understand Moore’s invention based on the
`
`totality of the teachings of Moore. See Ex. 2027.
`
`FIG. 16
`1.
`Dr. Shamos’ response that Moore’s FIG. 16 does not show any header,
`
`footer, company logo, or email address because “they just happen to be above and
`
`1 Patent Owner criticizes statements made by Dr. Shamos at his deposition, yet
`
`fails to cite to a single statement from that deposition.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 14
`
`below the part of the page shown in the actual figure” is not speculation because
`
`Moore’s FIG. 16 literally shows only the middle of the page.
`
`The scrollbar on the right hand side of the frame from FIG. 16 demonstrates that
`
`only the middle of the page is in view. A frame that only shows the middle of a
`
`page cannot show the header or footer, because the header or footer is located at
`
`the top and the bottom of a page, respectively. Moreover, there is no company
`
`logo or email address because Moore points out that “[t]he page header and footer
`
`are typically used for the company name and logo,” and “[a]n email address and a
`
`link URL are also commonly included.” Ex. 1010, 11:4-7. The purpose of this
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 15
`
`Figure is to show the unique aspects of a Buy Page, not to show the header and
`
`footer, which is disclosed elsewhere.
`
`Background controls
`2.
`Patent Owner’s criticism of Dr. Shamos’ suggestion that the background
`
`control in FIG. 15 applies to a portion of the page is unfounded. Dr. Shamos
`
`astutely points out that if the product is black and the default background is black,
`
`then perhaps this background control applies only to a portion of the page so a
`
`customer can actually perceive the image of the product. Further, Moore is explicit
`
`that a user should be able to change aspects of each page. Id. at 11:25-26.
`
`Subsection (6b)
`3.
`Patent Owner’s contention that Dr. Shamos is wrong when he indicates that
`
`subsection (6b) applies to Buy Pages is incorrect. First, Patent Owner erroneously
`
`suggests that subsection (6c) is “a distinct subsection (6c) applicable to the Buy
`
`Page.” Subsection (6c) is entitled “Interfacing with a Distributed Electronic
`
`Commerce System.” Id. at 12:1-2. Subsection (6c) describes how to interface
`
`between the merchant’s web site and the backend which is comprised of the Store-
`
`Builder and Transaction Servers. Subsection (6c) discusses how a price URL is
`
`used to connect the merchant’s web site with the backend. There is no disclosure
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 16
`
`of designing the Buy Page in subsection (6c) because subsection (6b) has already
`
`enumerated the four steps necessary to design web pages.
`
`Second, subsection (6b) is entitled “Building a Page.” Id. at 10:43 (emphasis
`
`added). It is not entitled “Building a Storefront Page” as Patent Owner suggests
`
`because it is not limited to Storefront Pages. In all four steps that Patent Owner
`
`contends are applicable only to Storefront Pages, there is not one mention of
`
`Storefront Pages. Instead, a POSITA would understand that this section applies to
`
`all pages, Storefront and Buy Pages, because Moore consistently uses language
`
`that refers to “for any page” and “for any particular page.” Ex. 1002, 121. For
`
`example, Moore notes that “[a]lthough the position and sizes of the style
`
`components are defined by style, they can be changed by the merchant for any
`
`page.” Ex. 1010, 11:30-32. Similarly, Moore indicates that “[t]he default
`
`background may be separately changed by the merchant for any particular page.”
`
`Id. at 11:25-26 (emphasis added). A POSITA would understand that the explicit
`
`teachings of Moore indicate that subsection (6b) applies to all pages. Ex. 1002,
`
`121.
`
`Price URL
`4.
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, a POSITA would understand that
`
`Moore does not literally mean that everything that defines the Buy Page is in the
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 17
`
`price URL, but everything that is needed to identify the Buy Page is in the price
`
`URL. Ex. 2027, 41:9-25. Moore explicitly indicates that “[t]he price URL has
`
`attached an encrypted message that contains a text description of the item for sale,
`
`including a picture, its costs, quantity of measure, the merchant’s ID, [and] several
`
`fields used to customize the Buy Page that is created from the attached data.” Ex.
`
`1010, 12:13-17 (emphasis added). These “several fields used to customize the Buy
`
`Page” would undoubtedly include identifiers to the look-and-feel data that is stored
`
`on the Store Builder Server so the servlet can generate the look-and-feel matching
`
`a particular host’s website.
`
`Further, to support the contention that Moore teaches that everything on the
`
`Buy Page is in the price URL, Patent Owner contends that “Moore explains that it
`
`is advantageous to store information on the owner’s site rather than the Store
`
`Builder Server or Transaction Server.” IPR2018-01011 Patent Owner’s Response,
`
`24. Petitioner agrees that it is advantageous to store some information on the
`
`owner’s site. The dynamic content, price, and description are provided in the URL
`
`and maintained on the owner’s site, while, the look-and-feel, including common
`
`header and footer information, is maintained on the Store-Builder Server.
`
`Patent Owner devotes an entire paragraph on Page 25 of the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to what “Dr. Shamos might speculate instead that the link could collect
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 18
`
`the necessary information from a server run by Moore’s merchant.” Id. at 25.
`
`Because Patent Owner is speculating on what Dr. Shamos might speculate on,
`
`without citing to anything in his deposition, it is difficult to comprehend the point
`
`Patent Owner is attempting to make.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Shamos’ statement about
`
`including all the information necessary to build a Buy Page in the price URL. This
`
`entire argument is a distraction. Patent Owner’s definition of the Price URL only
`
`requires that the product information is included in the Price URL, not the look and
`
`feel information, which is embedded in the Java servlet. Nonetheless, Dr. Shamos’
`
`testimony in context is consistent. See Ex. 2027, 73:5-21.
`
`I.
`
`Moore discloses the commission limitations of dependent claims 4
`and 14.
`Moore discloses keeping track of sales to bill merchants for their services.
`
`Ex. 1010, 9:23-27. A POSITA would understand Moore as disclosing revenue
`
`sharing on a markup-and-cost-basis or a cost-and-percentage-basis, and each basis
`
`was well-known, would have been obvious to implement, and would utilize the
`
`same technical functionality. Ex. 1002, 127. Patent Owner contends that Moore
`
`does not disclose the commission limitations, yet Patent Owner fails to cite any
`
`part of the Moore reference to support this contention. See IPR2018-01011 Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, 27-31. Instead, Patent Owner concludes that Moore does not
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`Page 19
`
`teach the commission limitations without any support or rebuttal of any of
`
`Petitioner’s arguments. Id.
`
`J. Moore teaches the hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`of dependent claims 7 and 17.
`Moore teaches the hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations of
`
`dependent claims 7 and 17 because Moore teaches electronic catalogs that include
`
`hierarchical pages. First, Moore discloses electronic catalogs because Moore uses
`
`the term synonymous with a storefront. For example, Moore explains that the
`
`“first function is a virtual presentation … of a merchant’s products to customers”
`
`and that “[t]his is sometimes called the ‘electronic storefront’ or ‘Web storefront,’
`
`or in the case of a catalog merchant, the ‘electronic catalog.’” Ex. 1010, 2:6-10
`
`(emphasis added). Moore further contemplates the use of catalogs when Moore
`
`notes that “[a] second problem is meeting the requirement that the Web storefront
`
`or Web catalog be constantly up-to-date.” Id. at 2:34-35 (emphasis added). Moore
`
`even references L.L. Bean as a traditional catalog company that has migrated its
`
`catalog to an electronic catalog. See id. at 1:65-67 (“an example of a traditional
`
`catalog company with its goods available via the web.”)
`
`Second, Moore teaches hierarchical web pages because Moore discloses web
`
`sites that are a collection of web pages. Id. at 9:51-55. Moore further explains tha