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
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................ iv
`
`Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Argument.................................................................................................................... 1
`
`I. Ground 2: Moore does not anticipate the challenged claims. ............................. 1
`
`A. The Petition does not rely on inherency arguments. .......................................... 2
`
`B. Moore does not explicitly say Storefront Pages and Buy Pages should
`
`have corresponding overall appearance. ............................................................. 2
`
`C. Anticipation cannot be premised only on expert speculation about what a
`
`POSITA supposedly “would understand from a disclosure.” ............................ 3
`
`D. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. .................................................................. 4
`
`E. Petitioner fails to prove that its interpretation of Moore is necessary or
`
`even plausible. .................................................................................................... 5
`
`1. Petitioner relies on a set of assumptions not explicit in Moore. ................... 5
`
`2. Petitioner’s interpretation is not required. ..................................................... 6
`
`3. Petitioner’s interpretation contradicts Moore’s explicit teachings. .............. 7
`
`4. Petitioner’s Reply fails to support its interpretation of Moore. ..................10
`
`a. “All/each/any” in Moore’s section 6b refers to Storefront Pages. ...........10
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`b. The Reply newly tenders misleading, off-point arguments about page
`
`creation, servlets, Java classes, and style components. ..................................13
`
`5. Other evidence calls into question Petitioner’s interpretation and supports
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation. .....................................................................18
`
`a. Petitioner’s Reply fails to dispute that the PTO examiner rejected its
`
`interpretation of Moore. ..................................................................................18
`
`b. Petitioner’s witness presented technically inaccurate information and has
`
`no answer to being “called out” on it. ............................................................19
`
`c. Petitioner’s Reply fails to rebut the evidence that limitations on the
`
`amount of information contained in a Price URL prevent making Buy Pages
`
`look like complex Storefront Pages. ...............................................................21
`
`F. Dependent claims: The Reply simply ignores deficiencies in the
`
`Petition’s showing of anticipation (or obviousness, as to Ground 3). .............. 22
`
`G. Because Moore does not teach corresponding overall visual appearance,
`
`Moore does not anticipate any of the challenged claims. ................................. 24
`
`II. Grounds 1 and 4: The Reply presents no additional argument about the
`
`Digital River Publications. ................................................................................. 24
`
`III. Conclusion. .................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 4
`King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................... 2
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................... 3
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................... 3
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2018-1599 (Fed. Cir.
`Mar. 8, 2019) .......................................................................................................2, 7
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2017-2223 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20,
`2019) ....................................................................................................................... 3
`Textron Inc. v. LLC, No. PGR2017-00035, 2018 WL 395662 (P.T.A.B. Jan.
`12, 2018) ................................................................................................................. 4
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., 853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Ex. No.
`2001 U.S. Patent 6,993,572
`2002 U.S. Patent 7,818,399
`2003 Decision denying motion to dismiss, June 5, 2018, 17-498 (D. Del.)
`2004
`File history of S.N. 12/906,979 (issued as U.S. Patent 8,515,825)
`2005
`File history of S.N. 13/970,515 (issued as U.S. Patent 9,043,228)
`2006
`File history of S.N. 14/719,009 (issued as U.S. Patent 9,639,876)
`2007
`List of Digital River references of record
`2008 Compendium of Digital River references of record
`2009
`[Reserved]
`2010 Moore-related charts from IDSs
`2011 Arnold-related charts from IDSs
`2012 Decision denying JMOL, June 20, 2013, 2:06-CV-00042-DF (E.D. Tex.)
`2013
`[Reserved]
`2014
`[Reserved]
`2015 Claim construction order, Nov. 21, 2011, 2:06-CV-00042-DF (E.D. Tex.)
`2016
`[Reserved]
`2017 Opinion denying Motion for Summary Judgment, Oct. 3, 2012, 2:06-CV-
`00042-DF (E.D. Tex.)
`[Reserved]
`2018
`[Reserved]
`2019
`[Reserved]
`2020
`2021 Demonstrative exhibit showing where relied-on quotes from uncited
`Digital River exhibits are present in cited Digital River art of record
`[Reserved]
`2022
`[Reserved]
`2023
`2024 Crosby Declaration in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`2025 Declaration of Dr. Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D.
`2026 Keller CV
`2027
`Shamos deposition
`2028 Demonstrative exhibit illustrating Tobin prior art patent’s figures
`2029
`Images from Digital River prior art system discussed at E.D. Tex. trial
`2030
`[Reserved]
`2031
`Images discussed at E.D. Tex. trial as infringing overall visual matching
`2032 URL containing all information necessary to display Moore Fig. 16
`2033 Definition of “commission”
`2034 Notice of Allowance and claims of continuation App SN 15/582,105
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`Summary
`
`Petitioner’s Reply fails to rebut Patent Owner’s showing that Moore only
`
`refers to applying common styles to “each page” that its “Development Tool”
`
`publishes to a merchant’s “Storefront” site, and that the “Buy Page” that Petitioner
`
`likens to the claimed “composite web page” is not one of those pages. Thus, Moore
`
`never teaches that a merchant’s Buy Page “visually corresponds” in “overall
`
`appearance” to a merchant’s Storefront Page and does not anticipate.
`
`Instead, for the first time, Petitioner claims that Moore’s references to “style
`
`components,” “Java servlets,” and “Java classes” imply this element. But
`
`Petitioner’s Reply cites no evidence—and there is none—that an artisan would so
`
`conclude. Even so, Petitioner’s unsupported attorney arguments for its untimely
`
`theories are implausible. Nothing about Moore’s discussion of those features
`
`suggests providing overall visual correspondence between a host’s “source” page
`
`and an outsource provider’s “composite” page.
`
`Argument
`
`I.
`
`Ground 2: Moore does not anticipate the challenged claims.
`
`Moore (Ex. 1010) fails to anticipate because it does not disclose
`
`corresponding overall appearance between a host’s website page and an outsource
`
`provider’s “composite page,” either expressly or inherently.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`A. The Petition does not rely on inherency arguments.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 20 at 11) noted, “Petitioner has not raised
`
`inherency.” Petitioner’s silence in response concedes Patent Owner’s
`
`demonstration that the Petition neither raised nor met the requirements to prove
`
`any inherent disclosure in Moore; “mere possibility is not enough” to show the
`
`inherency of a “proposed, theoretical” feature “derived from” a reference in which
`
`the feature “does not necessarily exist ….” Personal Web Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Apple, Inc., No. 2018-1599, slip op. at 10-12 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2019).
`
`The anticipation argument thus reduces to the question of whether Moore
`
`discloses in its “four corners” the corresponding overall appearance. King Pharms.,
`
`Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (anticipation requires
`
`that “each and every limitation [be] found either expressly or inherently in a single
`
`prior art reference.”).
`
`B. Moore does not explicitly say Storefront Pages and Buy Pages should
`
`have corresponding overall appearance.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply cites no place where Moore explicitly states that
`
`Storefront Pages and a Buy Page would have corresponding overall appearance or
`
`where Moore shows an example of it. Moore does not say or show this.
`
`Nor does the Reply cite any place where Moore explicitly states that a
`
`template style, which can include headers and footers, is applied to a Buy Page, or
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`that headers and footers specifically are applied to a Buy Page. Moore does not say
`
`or show this either.
`
`Petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Shamos, agrees that Moore contains no explicit
`
`statement: “Q. Moore never refers to applying headers and footer [to Buy Pages] as
`
`such; correct? A. That’s correct.” Ex. 2027 at 117:10-22.
`
`C. Anticipation cannot be premised only on expert speculation about
`
`what a POSITA supposedly “would understand from a disclosure.”
`
`Instead of pointing to any explicit teaching in Moore of visual
`
`correspondence between pages of different parties, Petitioner (at 13) relies on the
`
`opinion of its witness, Dr. Shamos, that a POSITA “would understand … the
`
`totality of th[ose] teachings” to supply this element. But the Reply does not even
`
`attempt to square this reliance with Patent Owner’s citation (Response at 22) of the
`
`Federal Circuit’s holding in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor
`
`Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274-75 (Fed. Cir. 2017), that the Board cannot “fill in
`
`missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision
`
`them.”
`
`The Federal Circuit reiterated in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No.
`
`2017-2223, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2019), that such testimony about what
`
`“a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from [a] disclosure” as a
`
`whole amounts to mere “supposition” that is insufficient as a matter of law to
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`supply an element that a prior art reference “does not expressly disclose.” This is
`
`particularly true where, as shown below to be the case here, such “supposition”
`
`involves “multiple layers” of inference and “contradictory” testimony. Id.
`
`Apart from the special case of a reference that “actually disclosed [a] genus,
`
`[in] which there [are] an allegedly small number of species,” the Board has found
`
`that anticipation cannot be shown by testimony “that it would have been evident to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art” that a reference would employ an element
`
`that it does not literally describe. Textron Inc. v. LLC, No. PGR2017-00035, 2018
`
`WL 395662, at *10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) (citing Nidec).
`
`Petitioner has not even acknowledged this standard, much less attempted to
`
`show that the features it imputes to Moore amount to more than “mere
`
`supposition.” The unrebutted testimony of Patent Owner’s expert discussed below
`
`that Moore could function without those features prevents such a showing. That
`
`testimony prevents a finding of anticipation also because “ambiguous references
`
`do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto.
`
`Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`D. Petitioner bears the burden of proof.
`
`The Reply does not deny that Petitioner bears the burden of proving that
`
`Moore discloses applying common appearance to Storefront Pages and Buy Pages.
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`Reply also does not challenge the corollary identified in the Response (at 11) that
`
`Patent Owner thus need not prove that Moore’s system is entirely unable to share
`
`common appearance between the two pages.
`
`E. Petitioner fails to prove that its interpretation of Moore is necessary
`
`or even plausible.
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner present contrasting “interpretations” of Moore’s
`
`explicit teachings.
`
`1. Petitioner relies on a set of assumptions not explicit in Moore.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Moore shows common appearance between
`
`Storefront Pages and Buy Pages depends on several interlocking assumptions:
`
`• Assumption 1: Both Storefront Pages and Buy Pages are “generated” by a
`
`single tool, the Development Tool, running on the Store Builder Server.
`
`• Assumption 2: The elements established using the Development Tool—
`
`including the headers, footers, logos, default backgrounds, and page styles—
`
`extend to Buy Pages, not just to multiple Storefront Pages.
`
`• Assumption 3: The Java servlet on the Store Builder Server, which Moore
`
`discloses as dynamically creating the Buy Pages, accesses merchant-specific
`
`“look and feel” information maintained (stored) on the Store Builder Server.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`
`Page 6
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`
`• Assumption 4: The Price URL that links to the Java servlet contains a link or
`
`pointer indicating merchant-specific “look and feel” information stored on the
`
`Store Builder Server (as opposed to the URL including the information itself).
`
`Moore does not teach any of those things, and the Reply cites nothing in
`
`Moore explicitly saying these assumptions are true. Nor does the Reply cite any
`
`witness testimony; it relies instead on mere attorney argument about Moore’s
`
`teachings.
`
` Moore never discloses that Buy Pages have headers, footers, or other style
`
`elements or use default templates. Moore never discloses that a server serving Buy
`
`Pages maintains merchant-specific “look and feel” information. Moore never
`
`discloses that Price URLs contain any kind of link, pointer, or identifier.
`
`And contrary to some of the assumptions, Moore discloses that the
`
`Development Tool can run on the customer’s computer without interacting with
`
`any servlets on the Store Builder Server. See Part I.E.4.b, below. Moore also makes
`
`clear that the Development Tool does not “generate” Buy Pages; rather, the Price
`
`URLs cause the Store Builder Server to generate Buy Pages dynamically when a
`
`visitor activates the URL. Ex. 1010 at 6:23-25.
`
`2. Petitioner’s interpretation is not required.
`
`Certainly, none of Petitioner’s assumptions are necessary—Moore’s system
`
`can work without them. Specifically, Moore’s system can work just fine as literally
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`described, with the Price URL including “all information” needed to produce the
`
`types of Buy Pages shown in Moore’s Figure 16, with no merchant-specific data
`
`on the Store Builder (or Transaction) Server, with no links or pointers in URLs,
`
`and with Buy Pages not containing headers, footers, or other customizations
`
`applicable to Storefront Pages.
`
`Buy Pages for all “merchants” could look just like the example shown in
`
`Figure 16, with each merchant free to deviate only to the extent permitted by the
`
`control page of Figure 15. Dr. Keller offered an actual example of a Price URL that
`
`would work to produce a page that looks like Figure 16, without any of Petitioner’s
`
`assumptions being true. Ex. 2025 at ¶39(c); Ex. 2032. Petitioner’s Reply does not
`
`dispute that Dr. Keller’s example is consistent with Moore’s disclosure.
`
`Thus, there is no reason to assume that a Buy Page would match any
`
`merchant’s Storefront Page, even if all Storefront Pages for a given merchant
`
`looked alike.
`
`3. Petitioner’s interpretation contradicts Moore’s explicit teachings.
`
`Petitioner’s assumptions contradict Moore statements in several respects.
`
`Thus, as in the recent SRI Int’l and Personal Web decisions cited above, the Board
`
`can conclude that Petitioner’s assumptions are “based on multiple layers of
`
`supposition” and that “an equally plausible, if not more plausible, understanding”
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`of Moore is that the “proposed, theoretical” features on which Petitioner and its
`
`witness rely “do not necessarily exist” in Moore.
`
`The primary contradictions between Moore’s literal teachings and
`
`Petitioner’s package of suppositions are:
`
`1. Moore literally teaches that the Price URL “contains all of the
`
`relevant information on the product [picture, price, description, etc.], and all the
`
`information necessary to build a ‘Buy Page.’” Ex. 1010 at 6:17-25 (emphasis
`
`added); see also id. at 13:37-38 (claim 1) (“building a Web page from the price
`
`URL that is presented to the consumer using the browser.”). By contrast,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (at 17) makes it clear that Petitioner’s theory depends on the
`
`Board finding—contra Moore—that only the product information (“dynamic
`
`content, price, and description”) but not the rest (“look-and-feel … information”
`
`used in building the Buy Page) is “provided in the URL ….”
`
`2. Moore literally teaches that not only can a merchant change its
`
`content, pricing, and description, but also the “merchant can redesign the [Store]
`
`site … without even notifying the Store Builder Server or the Transaction Server.”
`
`8:47-53; see also 12:12-19 & 25-26 (“Store Builder Server is able to decrypt the
`
`price URL data and convert it into an HTML page (a Buy Page).”). By contrast,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (at 17) makes it clear that Petitioner’s theory depends on the
`
`Board finding—contra Moore—that “the look-and-feel, including common header
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`and footer information, is maintained on the Store-Builder Server,” while the
`
`“dynamic content, price, and description are provided in the URL and maintained
`
`on the owner’s site.”
`
`3. Moore literally teaches that it is undesirable to store merchant-specific
`
`data on the servers that serve the Buy Pages: Moore explains that it is
`
`advantageous to store such information on the owner’s site rather than at the Store
`
`Builder or Transaction Server. 8:47-61 (“merchant can redesign the [Store] site …
`
`without even notifying the Store Builder Server or the Transaction Server”); 12:12-
`
`19 & 25-26 (appearance information, including “fields used to customize the Buy
`
`Page” and “a picture,” is passed through the Price URL); see also 5:11-18 (server
`
`“does not host the Web storefront” and moreover “need not store … any …
`
`information on the product line of the merchant”); 9:15-20 (server “does not need
`
`to maintain … any information on the products being offered for sale by the
`
`merchants”). Reasons given include minimizing space on the “Store
`
`Builder/Transaction Server” and the ability of an owner to control its site content
`
`without notifying such a server. 9:1-8, 15-20; see Ex. 2025 at ¶41. By contrast,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (at 17) makes clear that its theory relies on the Board finding—
`
`despite Moore’s description—that the Price URL “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.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`Because Petitioner’s package of suppositions about how Moore might work
`
`contradicts explicit teachings of the reference, Petitioner’s view is implausible.
`
`4. Petitioner’s Reply fails to support its interpretation of Moore.
`
`The Reply offers a handful of reasons why, allegedly, Moore should be
`
`“understood” the way Petitioner desires, but none holds up.
`
`a. “All/each/any” in Moore’s section 6b refers to Storefront
`
`Pages.
`
`The Reply argues (at 2) that “Moore makes no distinction between
`
`Storefront and Buy Pages” in section 6b, which refers to templates and the like
`
`applying to “pages” generally. However, the Reply does not rebut any of the ample
`
`evidence revealing the error in that presumption:
`
`(1) As Petitioner’s witness has admitted, the “templates” in Section 6b are
`
`“applied to … pages that the tool creates.” Ex. 2027 at 59:16-19 (“Q. [In Moore
`
`section 6b,] it doesn’t say what pages the templates are applied to; right? A. The
`
`pages that the tool creates.”). But Buy Pages are not in that category. Id. at 177:13-
`
`16 (“Q: The Development Tool does not create a buy page, right? A: It doesn’t
`
`create a buy page.”). See Response, Paper 20 at 14. Not only does Petitioner’s
`
`Reply fail to offer any rebuttal, it actually amplifies the admission. See Reply at 7
`
`(“Buy Pages are generated dynamically on the fly by the Java servlet”; citing Ex.
`
`1010 at 6:23-25).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`(2) Moore’s Section 6b describes the process of creating pages that are
`
`previewed and uploaded, but the pages that are previewed and uploaded are
`
`Storefront Pages and not Buy Pages. The Reply (at 16) argues, “In all four steps
`
`that Patent Owner contends are applicable only to Storefront Pages, there is not
`
`one mention of Storefront Pages.” That is untrue, and crucial: Moore explicitly
`
`refers to Storefront Pages by writing—at the end of the “four steps” discussed in
`
`section 6b—this conclusion:
`
`“Additionally, the Development Tool also provides a previewing
`
`option which uploads all of the pages and allows the merchant to view
`
`the entire Web site with a Web browser. When the pages are all
`
`created, the Development Tool allows the merchant to upload or
`
`publish the Web pages to a site specified by the merchant.”
`
`Ex. 1010 at 11:58-64 (emphasis added; paragraph break omitted); see also id. at
`
`11:65-67 (“FIG. 14 shows a screen which prompts the merchant for the publishing
`
`information.”). And Petitioner’s witness admits that Buy Pages are not in that
`
`category either. “Q: And so, the reference then in the following clause, ‘allows the
`
`merchant to upload or publish the Web pages to a site’—again, ‘the Web pages
`
`that are uploaded or published to a site’ are not buy pages; right? A. No.” Ex. 2027
`
`at 180:15-20. The Reply has no answer or explanation for why the admission
`
`should be disregarded.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Keller, testified to the same effect, and the
`
`Reply does not challenge the testimony; indeed Petitioner did not even cross-
`
`examine Dr. Keller. The key undisputed evidence (Ex. 2025 at ¶¶31-32 (emphasis
`
`in original)) is:
`
`31. The Petition and supporting Shamos Declaration repeatedly
`
`states or implies that the information collected in the course of
`
`designing the “storefront pages,” including the headers and footers,
`
`are used on “all of the Web pages, including the buy page” or that
`
`“the header and footer are included in each page, which would include
`
`the buy pages.” I disagree.”….
`
`32. Although Moore refers to design features like headers and
`
`footers applying to “all pages,” Ex. 1007 at Fig. 7, and customizing
`
`(or using standard) style components on “any page,” 11:33, in context,
`
`those remarks refer to pages of the merchant’s website. Any POSITA
`
`reading Moore without the benefit of the teachings of Ross would
`
`have understood that the entirety of description in Moore’s discussion
`
`of templates at 10:43-11:67 and Figures 6-14 refers to techniques for
`
`creating the static website of the “merchant’s Web storefront” and
`
`would not imagine that those templates would extend to the Buy Page
`
`served by a different server system. Moore uses “all pages,” “each
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`page,” and “any page” equivalently with “[e]ach page created by the
`
`merchant,” “the pages [that] are all created,” and “the Web pages”
`
`that the merchant may “upload or publish … to a site specified by the
`
`merchant.” 11:51-64. But Moore’s Development Tool does not create,
`
`preview, upload, or publish Buy Pages. The Store Builder/Transaction
`
`Server creates Buy Pages in response to the activation of a Price URL.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 6:16-25; Fig. 5A. Moore’s discussion of providing a
`
`common template for “each page” that the Development Tool creates
`
`thus concerns only pages of the merchant’s Storefront website, which
`
`the Petition analogizes to the “host” of the challenged patent.
`
`In sum, despite the Reply’s denials, the evidence—essentially all admitted or at
`
`least unrebutted—demonstrates that the references in Moore’s section 6b (and a
`
`few figures explained in that section) to “all/each/any” pages refers to Storefront
`
`Pages alone, not to Storefront Pages and Buy Pages equally.
`
`b. The Reply newly tenders misleading, off-point arguments
`
`about page creation, servlets, Java classes, and style components.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply seeks to buttress its Petition with a flurry of new
`
`arguments, which lack evidentiary support and mislead. The Board should
`
`disregard those arguments, as (1) they are missing from the Petition and presented
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`Page 14
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`
`for the first time in the Reply;1 (2) Petitioner offers only attorney argument rather
`
`than any explanation of the technical meaning of the referenced elements of
`
`Moore; and (3) they were not triggered by any specific argument in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response. Rather, Petitioner seems to recognize that the Response reveals flaws in
`
`the Petition’s argument about the templates of Figures 6-14 necessarily applying to
`
`“all pages” including Buy Pages and switches focus to other teachings of Moore.
`
`The Reply notes that a single “Development Tool” generates or creates both
`
`Storefront Pages and Buy Pages, and it argues repeatedly (at 1, 3, 10) that this
`
`suggests that the same appearance “would” result. That argument ignores the fact
`
`that the Development Tool has two separate “wizards,” one for Storefront Page
`
`creation (Ex. 1010 at Figs. 6-14 & Section 6b) and the other for Buy Page
`
`definition (id. at Fig. 15 & Section 6c).2
`
`
`1
`The word “classes” is absent entirely from the Petition, “servlet” is
`
`
`
`mentioned once without comparing with any other “servlet,” and although the
`
`Petition mentions “styles,” there is no discussion or reliance on Moore’s statement
`
`that a Price URL can be “attached to a style component.”
`
`2
`
`Also, as noted above, the Development Tool does not “generate” or “create”
`
`the Buy Page; it just allows the merchant to define certain aspects of it.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`The Reply notes that both Storefront Page creation and Buy Page display use
`
`“Java servlet technology,” both allegedly positioned on the “same server,” and
`
`argues (at 3-4, 10, 11) that this suggests that the appearance of the different pages
`
`“would be consistent” or “will result in pages having the same look and feel.” But
`
`the Storefront and Buy Pages are created by different servlets. Compare Ex. 1010
`
`at 5:55-63 with 6:23-25. Indeed, the Storefront Pages, Moore says, may not be
`
`created by any servlet—another alternative, called “the preferred embodiment,” is
`
`a downloaded “applet” or “application.” Ex. 1010 at 5:49-51, 5:66-6:1, 10:25-27;
`
`Ex. 2025 at ¶¶20, 43 (unchallenged evidence). And even if two servlets exist, they
`
`are not necessarily located on the same server, because Moore teaches that the
`
`merchant can run the Development Tool to create Storefront Pages on either the
`
`Store Builder Server or the Store Server, id., whereas the servlet that creates Buy
`
`Pages dynamically can be located on either the Store Builder Server or the
`
`Transaction Server, Ex. 1010 at 7:16-21. Anyway, use of the “same technology” in
`
`creating pages has no logical bearing on how differently created web pages might
`
`appear. As Moore itself indicates, Java servlets are a “standard” feature of
`
`“conventional” web servers. 5:1-10. The fact that different pages on the Internet do
`
`not all look the same disproves the notion that using Java servlets ensures
`
`corresponding appearance.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`The Reply (at 3, 8, 12) refers to “Java classes” as allegedly defining “look
`
`and feel,” supposedly thus ensuring that Buy Pages and Storefront Pages have
`
`“similar look and feel.” The Reply cites Moore 12:55-58, which has nothing to do
`
`with design of either Buy Pages or Storefront Pages. There, Moore teaches:
`
`The look and feel of the Development Tool can also be adapted. The
`
`Tool incorporates a particular look and feel which includes a large
`
`number of items that affect the presentation of information to the tool
`
`user. Examples include the use of icons, radio buttons, using tabs to
`
`show other features available, etc. As mentioned in the introduction, a
`
`merchant may not like the standard tool look and feel or may simply
`
`want a different one for a variety of reasons. The Development Tool is
`
`an object-oriented application, and its look and feel is provided by a
`
`Java class. This class can be removed and another used in its place in
`
`order to provide a different look and feel.
`
`Thus, this citation discusses the appearance of the user interface in the
`
`Development Tool software. It is entirely irrelevant to whether Storefront Pages
`
`and Buy Pages have similar appearance; even if it allowed changing the “look and
`
`feel for the pages produced by the Development Tool,” as the Reply contends (at
`
`12), it would apply only to Storefront Pages, not Buy Pages, for the reasons
`
`explained above.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`The Reply repeatedly argues (at 3, 4, 5, 8, 11) that Moore teaches applying
`
`“common style components to both Storefront and Buy Pages.” This grossly
`
`misreads Moore. The “style components” are defined, using the Development
`
`Tool, for placement on the Storefront Pages. Ex. 1010 at 11:42-44 and Figs. 11-13.
`
`Moore then teaches that a “price URL … can be attached to any style component.”
`
`12:5-8 (emphasis added). That simply means that the Price URL, which is the link
`
`to the Buy Page, can be activated by clicking on a chosen content-related object on
`
`the Storefront Page, such as a piece of text or an image. 11:42-44. Moore never
`
`says that the Buy Page would contain the “style component” to which the Price
`
`URL was attached on the Storefront Page. The Reply (at 8) argues, “The URL
`
`itself is a link to a servlet that includes look and feel information, or as referred to
`
`by Moore, a ‘style component’.” That again is misleading, inaccurate, and
`
`unsupported (as shown by the absence of a citation to any testimony). There is no
`
`evidence at all, in Moore or from any witness, suggesting that the Buy Page
`
`reached through the link —or the “servlet” generating it—would contain/include
`
`the same style component on the Storefront Page to which the link to the Buy Page
`
`is “attached.” Again, Moore’s teaching that style components “can be changed by
`
`the merchant for any page” (Ex. 1010 at 11:33) appears in section 6b, which as
`
`explained above refers to Storefront Pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01011
`Page 18
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`
`5. Other evidence calls into question Petitioner’s interpretation and
`
`supports Patent Owner’s interpretation.
`
`Aside f
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
