PTAB

IPR2014-00033

Google Inc v. Be Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Remote Storage and Retrieval of User-Specific Files
  • Brief Description: The ’290 patent described a client-server system for the remote storage and retrieval of user-specific files. The system featured a server that stored a unique "user profile" and "user library" for multiple users, allowing each user to access their stored files from any client computer connected to the network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Foley - Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Foley (Patent 5,706,502).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Foley (Patent 5,706,502).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Foley, which disclosed a software portfolio management system, taught every element of the challenged claims. Foley's system allowed a user to create "portfolio files" that contained references (links) to various "project files" (e.g., executables, images, libraries). Petitioner contended that Foley's "portfolio file," which represents user-specific information, directly corresponded to the ’290 patent's "user profile." Consequently, the collection of "project files" linked within a given portfolio corresponded to the claimed "user library." Foley explicitly disclosed that its system operated on networked computers, where a user on a client computer could access and work with portfolios and projects stored on a remote computer (a server). The system included a graphical user interface with user-selectable items (icons, menu options) that allowed a user to access and manipulate the project files via their associated links (file paths or URLs).
    • Motivation to Combine: While this was a single-reference ground, Petitioner asserted an obvious modification to Foley's disclosure to explicitly meet the limitation of a server storing profiles and libraries for multiple users. Foley taught that "users" (plural) could use its system and could publish portfolios for access by others. Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement Foley's system on a single server for multiple users, each with their own portfolio and project files. The motivation was driven by the well-known and common need for convenient access and reduced hardware costs, a standard practice in shared computing environments like schools, small businesses, or homes at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in extending Foley's system to multiple users on a single server. Petitioner asserted this was not a complex technical challenge but rather a routine duplication of the described software for each user account, a common configuration for multi-user systems.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that the broadest reasonable construction of key claim terms should be governed by the explicit definitions provided in the ’290 patent's specification. These constructions were central to mapping the Foley reference to the claims.

  • "Profile": The ’290 patent defined a "profile" as "user-specific information relating to an individual using a computer." Petitioner contended that Foley's "portfolio file," created by and for a specific user to organize their projects, squarely met this definition.
  • "User Library": Although not explicitly defined, the claims required a "user library containing one or more files" and a "user profile containing at least one user link that provides a link to one of the files in the user library." Petitioner argued that the collection of "project files" described in Foley, which were linked to by a user's "portfolio file," constituted the claimed "user library."
  • "Server": The ’290 patent defined a "server" as "a computer on a network that stores information and that answers requests for information." Petitioner identified Foley's disclosure of a remote computer (e.g., "Machine C" in Figure 6) that housed portfolios and project files and was accessible over the internet as meeting this definition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 2 and 3 of Patent 6,771,290 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.