- Snap Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01294 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged claims 1–25 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds and denied Patent Owner’s contingent motions to amend.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Snap proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’599 patent would have possessed “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of content presentation and context-based systems/processes.” Snap Pet. 3 (citing Snap IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 32. Snap further asserts that additional “education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that Snap’s proposed description of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art aligned with the technology and claims of the ’599 patent. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7. For this proceeding, Patent Owner and Dr. Martin apply this level of skill in the art. Snap PO Resp. 11–12; Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 48–50. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Snap’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Martin also provides consistent testimony on this issue. Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 81–82. Put simply, the Specification’s disclosure is that the set of rules for multiple content packages includes an expected response, and actions are then performed based on whether an expected response is or is not provided. Moreover, as Dr. Almeroth testifies, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term “unexpected response”—rather the Specification only identifies an “expected response.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 42. Accordingly, the disclosures in Table 1 and the Specification support Dr. Almeroth’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “the claimed ‘determin[e/ing]’ limitation requires what it plainly recites: ‘determin[e/ing] whether the received response matches the expected response[]’. . . . [i]t does not require an unexpected response not known to the system.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“time,’ ‘type of location,’ and other contextual information to automatically determine whether users would like to undertake learning activities.” Twitter Pet. Reply 18 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 1005, 2 3, 5 (“A check . . . to see if the information from the database corresponds with the location sensor (i.e. a check on whether the learner is really keeping his/her schedule).”), Fig.1; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1025 ¶ 49; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85, 157–162, 238, 435, 451, 517; Twitter Pet. 20–21). Accordingly, the evidence of record support that Yau teaches that context triggers the display of a content piece, such as an exercise/test/quiz. Patent Owner also argues that Twitter asserts that PALLES’ content piece is “‘exercise[s],’ ‘test[s],’ and/or ‘MP Quiz[zes],’” but also contends that Yau’s “formal assessment” is the claimed content piece. Twitter PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that “Twitter points back to its limitation 12.1 PALLAS evidence for the purported ‘content piece’” and also does not mention Yau for limitation 12.5 and 12.6 and “only conclusorily states that ‘PALLAS in view of Yau renders obvious triggering an exercise/test/quiz.’” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments overlook Twitter’s assertion, with Dr. Turnbull’s supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Yau’s formal assessments are “tests with answers for comparing against learner’s responses to assess knowledge/performance/skill (contrasting with ‘un-assessed’ exercises whose responses are unchecked).” Twitter Pet. 43; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶ 154. Further, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s assertion that it is implementing PALLAS’s context-triggerbased content display using Yau’s teachings of displaying assessments/questions based on context. Twitter Pet. 43. Patent Owner also asserts that in the PALLAS-Yau combination, Twitter does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art in the manner Petitioner alleges. Twitter PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that “PALLAS says nothing about forcing quizzes, tests, or exercises on its users without the users asking for such exercises,” and a person of skill would understand that the combined system still requires that a student select a learning activity and that PALLAS’s system should be unobtrusive because learners “may have small time slots to engage in learning.” Id. (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 168; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1004, 54). Patent Owner further contends that “Twitter’s conclusory, hindsight-driven statements” do not suffice and PALLAS teaches away from the modifications suggested by Twitter. Id. at 42–43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 144). Patent Owner argues that because a learner may not have time to complete a test, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change PALLAS to trigger exercises/tests/quizzes based on location or time. Id. at 43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 142–144). The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 115
- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“2. Enlarging Scope of Claims Patent Owner asserts that it proposes narrowing limitations in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding. See, e.g., Snap Mot. 3–4. Facebook argues Patent Owner is “improperly attempting to enlarge the scope of the original claims.” Facebook Pet. Opp. 1. Facebook asserts, “[i]f ‘an expected response’ means one or more expected responses, therefore, determining whether the received response ‘matches the expected response’ means that the received response must match [all of] the one or more previously-recited expected responses in the content package.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Facebook then argues “the term ‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response,’” because “an ‘expected response’ does not include any conceivable or possible response; it is a response that is expected.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Twitter argues that “‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response’ because a ‘predefined response’ can include any possible response as long as that response has been somehow defined in advance.” Twitter Pet. Opp. 2. We consider the amendments in view of the claim as a whole. Although the term “one predefined response” may be broader than “an expected response,” we also consider the amended portion “wherein the received response is expected if the received response matches one or more of the at least one predefined response,” and “the received response is unexpected if the received response does not match any of the at least one predefined response.” Unless the response had been predefined within the content package, any “received response” could not be considered “expected” under the claims, and the additional clause requires a match of the response with the predefined response to be deemed “expected.” This equates to an equivalent scope to the original claim. This is consistent with Dr. Martin’s testimony, which we credit, that he is not aware of a situation where the substitute but not original claims are infringed because “[t]he substitute claims would only be satisfied when a ‘predefined response’ in the substitute claims is an ‘expected response’ in the original claims.” Facebook IPR, Ex. 2023 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 136
Patent outcomesUS 8,489,599 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,489,599 - Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,671,057
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.