Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 8 571-272-7822 Entered: July 17, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

UNIFIED PATENTS INC., Petitioner,

v.

VANTAGE POINT TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner. ____________

Case IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION Institution of Inter Partes Review

37 C.F.R. 42.108

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

2

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner) filed a Petition (Paper 1, Pet.) to

institute an inter partes review of claims 13, 613, 1517, 27, 31, 41, 42,

49, and 59 of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,233 B1 (Ex. 1001, the 233 patent).

Vantage Point Technology, Inc. (Patent Owner) filed a Waiver of

Preliminary Response (Paper 6).

Upon consideration of the Petition, we are persuaded, under

35 U.S.C. 314(a), that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that

it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of each of the challenged

claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 13, 6

13, 1517, 27, 31, 49, and 59 of the 233 patent.

B. Related Matters The 233 patent has been asserted in several lawsuits against various

parties in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2.

C. Reference Relied Upon Petitioner relies on ROBERT MCDANIEL, CGI MANUAL OF STYLE

(1996) (Ex. 1002, CGI Manual).

D. The Asserted Ground Petitioner contends that claims 13, 613, 1517, 27, 31, 41, 42, 49,

and 59 are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), by CGI Manual. Pet. 4.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

3

II. ANALYSIS

A. The 233 Patent

The 233 patent generally describes a technique for serially and

automatically downloading network documents (e.g., web pages) by a client

computer (executing a web browser) from a server computer (e.g., a web

server) over a network (e.g., the Internet or the World Wide Web).

Ex. 1001, 1:1719, 3:13, Fig. 1. Rather than requesting a document, the

web browser requests from the server a control script (e.g., a script written in

Active Server Page, Javascript, or PERL). Id. at 3:3538, 4:2024.

Documents are served to the web browser under the control of the control

script.

Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment:

Figure 2 is a block diagram of control script 110 maintaining the state of a

document list 108.

The server determines which documents to transmit to the web

browser based on document list 108. The server modifies the HTML code

of each of a set of selected web pages to add a META-REFRESH tag,

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

4

which the 233 patent terms a controller. Id. at 3:46. The META-

REFRESH tag is a well-known HTML tag. Id. at 4:5255. The META-

REFRESH tag is contained in the header of an HTML document and has a

time variable (specifying the amount of time the web page is displayed

before a new page is requested automatically) and a target variable

(designating the web page that is to be requested after the time expires).

Id. at 4:5665. When a web browser executes a web page that includes a

META-REFRESH tag, the tag causes the web browser to issue a subsequent

download request to the server for another web page. Id. at 3:610, 4:4449.

According to the 233 patent, after modifying a document to add this tag, the

server adds the uniform resource locator (URL) of that document to

document list 108. Id. at 3:1012.

Control script 110 manipulates session variable 112 to point to the

URL of a web page in document list 108 that is to be transmitted to the web

browser. Id. at 4:913. When the server receives a request for control script

110 from the web browser, control script 110 consults session variable 112

to determine which document from document list 108 to send to the web

browser. Id. at 4:113. Once the current page is transmitted, control script

110 increments session variable 112 to point to the next URL in document

list 108. Id. at 4:3133.

According to the 233 patent, the META-REFRESH tags target

variable (identifier of a web page to be called) inserted into each web page

of document list 108 is the URL of control script 110. Id. at 4:6566. Upon

receiving and displaying a web page from the server, after expiration of the

time specified by the META-REFRESH tag, the web browser automatically

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

5

makes another request to the server, again requesting control script 110,

which consults the session variable and transmits to the web browser the

next web page if the end of document list 108 has not been reached. Id. at

4:665:4. This process repeats until all web pages in document list 108 are

transmitted. Id. at 4:2530.

Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject

matter:

1. An apparatus for transmitting a set of documents from a server computer to a client computer, the apparatus comprising:

an input that receives download request messages from the client computer;

a selector that, in response to receipt of a download request message, selects one of the set of documents based upon information not in the download request, the download request message including no address information identifying the selected one of the set of documents; and

an output that forwards both a controller and the selected one of the set of documents to the client computer,

when executing on the client computer, the controller commanding the client computer to generate and transmit a download request message to the server computer.

B. Claim Construction We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest

reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which

they appear. See 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

6

No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015). Claim

terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would

be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire

disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257

(Fed. Cir. 2007).

Claims 41 and 42 recite claim limitations in means-plus-function

format. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a

means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of

structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be

construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in

the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. 112, 6.1 The

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated: Section 112,

6 recites a mandatory procedure for interpreting the meaning of a means-

or step-plus-function claim element. These claim limitations shall be

construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in

the specification and equivalents thereof. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Intl, Inc.,

174 F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting 35 U.S.C. 112, 6);

see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 119394 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

([P]aragraph six applies regardless of the context in which the

interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of

a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or

1 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. 112, 6, as 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 29697 (2011). Because the 233 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date of the AIA), we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. 112, in this Decision.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

7

infringement determination in a court.). We construe such a limitation by

determining what the claimed function is and identifying the structure or

materials disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for

performing that function. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208

F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

For computer-implemented inventions, this corresponding structure

must be more than a general purpose computer or microprocessor.

See Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Intl Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,

1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, [w]hen dealing with a special purpose

computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, [the Federal

Circuit] require[s] the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing

the function. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318

(Fed. Cir. 2013); accord Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d

1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ([W]hen a computer is referenced as support

for a function in a means-plus-function claim, there must be some

explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function.).

1. Means for Accessing Claim 41 recites, inter alia, means for accessing, in response to

receiving the first download request, the document list to identify the

identifier of a first document in the document list, the first download request

including no address information identifying the first document. Petitioner

contends that this limitation invokes Section 112, Paragraph 6, and that the

function of the means for accessing is accessing, in response to receiving

the first download request, the document list to identify the identifier of a

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

8

first document in the document list, the first download request including no

address information identifying the first document. Pet. 12.

Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Norman Hutchinson, Ph.D.

(Ex. 1003, Hutchinson Decl.), argues that the233 patent Specification

describes:

Although a session variable 112 is discussed, however, it should be noted that other methods of determining the current URL in the document list 108 may be utilized. For example, the control script 110 may be written to include its own pointer. In other embodiments, the current URL may be maintained in a database or in a text file.

Pet. 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:1319). From this, Petitioner contends that the

structure for the means for accessing is software code in the memory of a

computer that, when executed by the computer processor, accesses the

document list to identify the identifier of a second document in the

document list. Pet. 9.

Although Petitioner identifies this structure, and later maps structure

in the CGI Manual to this limitation (Pet. 5253), Petitioner argues that this

limitation cannot be construed. Id. at 910, 12. According to Petitioner and

Dr. Hutchinson, the Specification provides a very general description that

describes the structure too briefly and indirectly. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1003

16). Despite clear direction in the statute precluding such contentions,2

Petitioner asks us to declare claim 41 to be unamenable to construction (and, 2 35 U.S.C. 311(b) states [a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

9

effectively, indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2) in order to effectively

preclude the Patent Owner from asserting those claims. Id. at 910.

We determine that the means for accessing limitation can be

construed, although we do not agree with Petitioners identification of

corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification. In particular,

Petitioner and Dr. Hutchinson argue that the 233 patent merely describes

software code in the memory of a computer as corresponding to the means

for accessing. They do not address sufficiently, however, whether the 233

patent describes an algorithm or otherwise explains how the computer

performs the recited function. See Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318;

Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384. Dr. Hutchinson testifies that, according to

the Specification,

the way in which the means for accessing is performed is that: software executed by a processor and residing in the memory of a computer accesses a list of document identifiers to select one of the identifiers of the first document without having received any address information from the client for the first document.

Ex. 1003 16 (pp. 1415). We conclude that the Specification provides a

description more detailed than Dr. Hutchinsons general characterization.

As an initial matter, we agree with Petitioner that the function of the

means for accessing is accessing, in response to receiving the first

download request, the document list to identify the identifier of a first

document in the document list, the first download request including no

address information identifying the first document. Because the means for

accessing is recited in the format of a means for performing a function,

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

10

and the limitation itself does not recite sufficient structure, we conclude that

this term invokes Section 112, Paragraph 6, and we construe it according to

the corresponding structure described in the Specification and equivalents

thereof. See Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1318.

The 233 patent describes a computer-based invention. For example,

[t]his invention generally relates to data transmission networks and, more

particularly, to transmitting data between a client computer and a server

computer. Ex. 1001, 1:1719. A document list is described as a list of

URLs of modified web pages. Id. at 3:1012. The document list is

maintained and accessed on a web site that preferably includes server

software, and one or more web pages that may be downloaded by a browser

on a client computer. Id. at 2:6167, 3:2426. According to the 233 patent,

Preferred embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such implementation may include a series of computer instructions fixed either on a tangible medium, such as a computer readable media (e.g., a diskette, CD-ROM, ROM, or fixed disk) or transmittable to a computer system, via a modem or other interface device, such as a communications adapter connected to a network over a medium.

Id. at 6:2836. The patent continues, [t]he series of computer instructions

embodies all or part of the functionality previously described herein with

respect to the system. Those skilled in the art should appreciate that such

computer instructions can be written in a number of programming languages

for use with many computer architectures or operating systems. Id. at

6:3945. Specifically, [t]he control script 110 preferably is written in

ACTIVE SERVER PAGE language (ASP). In alternative embodiments,

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

11

the control script 110 is written in PERL or JAVASCRIPT. Id. at 4:2023.

As these passages show, the 233 patent describes the invention as

implemented primarily as software executing on a general-purpose server

computer. Thus, we look for disclosure in the specification of an algorithm

executed by the server for performing the function. See Function Media,

708 F.3d at 1318.

Figure 3 of the 233 patent is reproduced below:

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

12

Figure 3 is a flow diagram of a process, used by a server, for automatically

uploading web pages to a client computer. Ex. 1001, 2:5254.

At step 300, the client computer requests control script 110, which is

executed on the server. Id. at 3:3138. According to the Specification, the

control script 110 preferably utilizes a session variable 112 to determine the

order in which each of the selected web pages in the document list 108 are to

be transmitted to the client computer 100. Ex. 1001, 3:1721. Session

variable 112 can be included in the Microsoft INFORMATION

SERVER server software, version 3.0, or the control script 110 may be

written to include its own pointer. Id. at 4:49, 4:1317. The Specification

explains that [t]he control script 110 is programmed to manipulate the

session variable 112 to point to the URL of a web page (in the list 108) that

is to be transmitted to the client computer 100 (i.e., the current URL or

current page). Id. at 4:913.

In his testimony, Dr. Hutchinson downplays the importance of the

session variable or pointer. Specifically, Dr. Hutchinson states:

The Patent describes using a wide range of mechanisms to accomplish this function, including a session variable, a pointer in the control script, a database, or a text file. The only structure common to all of these mechanisms is that they are all software code in the memory of a computer.

Ex. 1003 16 (p. 14). Dr. Hutchinson bases his testimony on the statement

in the Specification:

Although a session variable 112 is discussed, however, it should be noted that other methods of determining the current URL in the document list 108 may be utilized. For example, the control script 110 may be written to include its own pointer.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

13

In other embodiments, the current URL may be maintained in a database or in a text file.

Ex. 1003 16 (pp. 1314) (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:1319). We do not read this

passage to state that a session variable or pointer is optional. Rather, the

Specification states that a pointer in the control script is an alternative to a

separate session variable and that a document list optionally may be

maintained in a separate text file or database.

Returning to Figure 3, once a request for the script is received from

the client, the process continues to step 302 in which the control script 110

determines if the session variable 112 is pointing to the end of the document

list 108. Id. at 4:13. If not, the process continues to step 304 in which

the current page (i.e., the current page and its associated controller) is

transmitted to the client computer 100. Id. at 4:2630. After the current

page is transmitted, the process continues to step 306 in which the session

variable 112 (i.e., the pointer) is incremented to the next URL in the list

108. Id. at 4:3133.

We conclude that the 233 patent provides sufficient description of an

algorithm, executing on a general purpose server computer, for performing

the function of the means for accessing. In so concluding, we note that [i]n

software cases . . . , algorithms in the specification need only disclose

adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable

to one of ordinary skill in the art. AllVoice Computing PLV v. Nuance

Comm., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The specification can

express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a

mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

14

that provides sufficient structure. Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318

(quoting Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir.

2012)). According to Dr. Hutchinson, a skilled artisan had a bachelors

degree or masters degree in computer science, had experience with web

server/client development, and:

was well aware of the design and implementation of client/server systems generally, including World Wide Web clients and servers, the writing of scripts for such World Wide Web servers, the many programming languages in which such scripts are written, the features of the HTML language in which World Wide Web pages are described, and the META REFRESH tag and its uses.

Ex. 1003 20.

In light of the knowledge Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan

would have possessed, we conclude that Figure 3 of the 233 patent and its

corresponding description in the Specification describe an algorithm in a

manner that provides sufficient structure. The Specification describes and

depicts the steps performed by a server, programmed using a scripting

language such as PERL, for accessing a document list to identify the

identifier of a first document in the document list. Specifically, based the

description detailed above, the structure corresponding to the means for

accessing is a general purpose server computer executing an algorithm with

the steps: after receiving a request for a script, determining, by the script,

that a session variable or pointer does not point to the end of a document list;

consulting the session variable or pointer; and selecting an identifier (e.g., a

URL) of a first document in the document list corresponding to the session

variable or pointer, and equivalents thereof.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

15

In reaching our conclusion, we considered that claim 46, which

depends from claim 41, recites a pointer that points to the identifier of the

first document. Because a session variable or pointer is a necessary feature

of the only corresponding structure described in the 233 patent, it is not

appropriate to use the doctrine of claim differentiation to broaden claim 41

in this case. See Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) ([T]he judicially developed guide to claim interpretation known

as claim differentiation cannot override [35 U.S.C. 112, Paragraph 6]. A

means-plus-function limitation is not made open-ended by the presence of

another claim specifically claiming the disclosed structure which underlies

the means clause or an equivalent of that structure.).

2. Remaining Means-Plus-Function Terms Because our construction of means for accessing and our

application of that construction to the disclosure of CGI Manual (discussed

below) are dispositive, it is unnecessary to construe the remaining means-

plus-function terms of claims 41 and 42.

C. Anticipation by CGI Manual Petitioner contends that claims 13, 613, 1517, 27, 31, 41, 42, 49,

and 59 are anticipated by CGI Manual. Petitioner supports its contentions

with the testimony of Dr. Hutchinson.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

16

1. Overview of CGI Manual CGI Manual is a textbook that provides instructions on writing scripts

for a Common Gateway Interface (CGI). Ex. 1002, xiii.3 CGI is a standard

for communications between web documents and CGI scripts. Id. at 3. CGI

Manual provides examples of CGI scripts written in the PERL scripting

language. See, e.g., id. at 20912. Petitioner and Dr. Hutchinson focus, in

particular, on the example script of Listing 8.8 (Ex. 1002, 20912). Pet. 18

27; Ex. 1003, 3076.

Listing 8.8 is an example of a guided tour PERL script (guided.pl),

executing on a web server, that automatically serves successive web pages

of an educational software web site to a web browser. Id. at 198, 202. In the

example, guided.pl serves three web pages, home.html, downloads.html,

and tech-support.html, with each of these names stored in an array along

with the names of other Web pages from the site. Id. at 204.

Listing 8.4 illustrates an HTML web page, executed by a web

browser, that requests guided.pl from the server. Id. at 199. As shown in

Listing 8.4, the request does not specify a particular web page to retrieve.

Id. In that instance, a modified version of the first value in the array

(home.html) will be sent to the web browser. Id. at 204, 210. When the

web browser calls guided.pl, the script removes the first value of the array

(e.g., home.html) with a shift command. Id. Next, guided.pl inserts

(using a splice command) a META tag into the requested web page and 3 To correspond to the references used in the Petition, citations are to the actual page numbers of Exhibit 1002 rather than to the page numbers that Petitioner added to this document.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

17

sends it to the web browser. Id. at 20304, 211. The META tag includes a

Refresh instruction, a refresh time (e.g., 30 seconds), and the first value of

the array (after home.html is removed, the first value is downloads.html)

to request after the refresh time has expired. Id. at 20304, 210. For

example, guided.pl inserts into the home.html web page a META Refresh

tag causing the web page to request, after 30 seconds, the URL

http:/www.roberts.com/

cgi-bin/guided.pl?page=downloads.html. Id. at 204. When the web

browser displays home.html, after 30 seconds, the web browser

automatically sends another request to the web server for the guided.pl

script, with further instructions to have the script retrieve the web page

downloads.html.

2. Independent Claims 1, 17, 27, 31, 49, and 59 As explained above, CGI Manual describes the interaction of a web

server and a web browser. Regarding claim 1, Petitioner contends that CGI

Manual describes the process of viewing a document on the Web, including

a web browser (client computer) sending a request to a server, which

receives and reviews the request. Pet. 2829. According to Petitioner, this

discloses an input that receives download request messages from the client

computer, as recited in claim 1. Id. Petitioner argues that the script

guided.pl, shown in detail in Listing 8.8, is a selector, as recited in

claim 1, that selects one of a set of documents (home.html,

downloads.html, and tech-support.html) based upon information not in

the download request. Id. at 2931. As Petitioner observes (Pet. 31), the

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

18

initial request from the web browser, shown in Listing 8.4, requests

guided.pl, but does not request a particular web page (e.g.,

downloads.html.). Ex. 1002, 199. In this instance, guided.pl sends to the

web browser a modified version of home.html. Id. at 204.

Petitioner also contends that the META Refresh tag described by CGI

Manual is a controller, as recited in claim 1. Pet. 33. Petitioner points to

CGI Manuals description of inserting this tag into a web page and sending

the modified web page to the web browser as a disclosure of an output that

forwards both a controller and the selected one of the set of documents to the

client computer. Id. at 3233. Petitioner further argues that the META

Refresh tag embedded into a document transmitted by guided.pl, when

executed by a web browser, commands the client computer to generate and

transmit a download request message to the server computer. Id. at 3435.

On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a

reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is

anticipated by CGI Manual.

Independent claim 17 recites a computer program product with

program code for implementing steps analogous to the functions of claim 1s

modules. Independent claims 27 and 59 recite apparatus similar in scope to

claim 1. Independent claim 31 recites a method with steps similar to the

functions of claim 1. Independent claim 49 recites a program code product

with program code specifying steps similar to those of claim 31. Petitioner

contends that claims 17, 27, 31, 49, and 59 are anticipated for substantially

the same reasons as given for claim 1. Pet. 4952, 5860. On this record,

we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

19

that it would prevail in showing that claims 17, 27, 31, 49, and 59 are

anticipated by CGI Manual.

3. Claims 2, 3, 613, 15, and 16 Claims 2, 3, 613, 15, and 16 depend from claim 1. Each of these

claims recites additional features that Petitioner, in turn, argues are disclosed

by CGI Manual. Pet. 3549. We have considered Petitioners evidence,

including Dr. Hutchinsons testimony, and are persuaded that Petitioner has

made a threshold showing that each limitation of claims 2, 3, 613, 15, and

16 is disclosed in CGI Manual. On this record, Petitioner has demonstrated

a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 2, 3, 6

13, 15, and 16 are anticipated by CGI Manual.

4. Claims 41 and 42 As explained above, claim 41 recites means for accessing, in

response to receiving the first download request, the document list to

identify the identifier of a first document in the document list, the first

download request including no address information identifying the first

document. Claim 42 depends from claim 41.

Petitioner argues that CGI Manuals guided.pl is software code that

accesses a document list responsive to receiving a first download request,

the first download request only identifying the guided.pl script and not any

address information of a first document. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1003 37).

Petitioner contends that this discloses a means for accessing, as recited in

claim 41. Id.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

20

Petitioner has not shown that CGI Manual discloses structure the same

as, or equivalent to, the structure described in the 233 patent as

corresponding to the means for accessing. In Section II.B.1 above, we

construed the means for accessing to be a general purpose server computer

executing an algorithm with the steps: after receiving a request for a script,

determining, by the script, that a session variable or pointer does not point to

the end of a document list; consulting the session variable or pointer; and

selecting an identifier (e.g., a URL) of a first document in the document list

corresponding to the session variable or pointer, and equivalents thereof.

Petitioner does not point to persuasive evidence that guided.pl has structure

that implements steps the same as or equivalent to those described in the

233 patent. For example, Petitioner does not point to any session variable

or pointer in guided.pl, even though the description in the 233 patent

Specification identified by Petitioners Declarant, Dr. Hutchinson (Ex. 1001,

4:1319), discusses a number of mechanisms for performing this function,

including a session variable or a pointer in the control script. Ex. 1003 16

(cited in Pet. 1213). Thus, Petitioner has not identified any structure in

CGI Manual the same as or equivalent to an algorithm containing the steps

consulting a session variable or pointer and selecting an identifier of a first

document in a document list corresponding to the session variable or pointer.

Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood

that it would prevail in showing that claim 41 and its dependent claim 42 are

anticipated by CGI Manual.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

21

III. CONCLUSION

We institute an inter partes review of claims 13, 613, 1517, 27,

31, 49, and 59, but not of claims 41 and 42. We have not yet made a final

determination of the patentability of these claims or the construction of any

claim term.

IV. ORDER

For the reasons given, it is

ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted as to claims 13, 6

13, 1517, 27, 31, 49, and 59, under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), as anticipated by

CGI Manual;

FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds

identified above, and no other ground is authorized; and

FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314(a), inter

partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,615,233 B1 is hereby instituted

commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

314(c) and 37 C.F.R. 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a

trial.

IPR2015-00732 Patent 6,615,233 B1

22

PETITIONER:

Michael L. Kiklis Scott A. McKeown Katherine D. Cappaert Jonathan Stroud cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com cpdocketcappaert@oblon.com jonathan@unifiedpatents.com PATENT OWNER:

Tarek N. Fahmi tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com