PTAB

IPR2015-00470

E Trade Financial Corp v. Droplets Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Internet-Based Client/Server Interactivity
  • Brief Description: The ’115 patent describes methods and systems for delivering interactivity to a client device from a remote server. The invention involves a server sending a web page with embedded executable code to a client, the client sending event messages based on user actions back to the server, and the server executing application logic to generate and send back updated data values to the client's user interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Franco PCT and Moshfeghi - Claims 1-25 are obvious over Franco PCT in view of Moshfeghi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Franco (WO 01/20848) and Moshfeghi (Patent 6,076,166).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Franco PCT specification is substantially identical to that of the ’115 patent and discloses most claim limitations, including a client-server system for delivering remote applications. However, Petitioner contended Franco may not explicitly teach executing server logic based on both a user action and client device information. Moshfeghi was argued to supply this missing teaching by disclosing a system that dynamically generates customized web pages based on client capabilities, such as display characteristics, browser type, and bandwidth connection.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Franco's client-server communication framework with Moshfeghi's dynamic content generation to improve interoperability and user experience across diverse client devices, which was a well-known industry goal.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying Moshfeghi's known technique for personalizing web content to Franco's similar web-based system, which would have yielded predictable improvements in functionality.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Frese - Claims 1, 9-10, 12, 20-21, and 25 are anticipated by Frese.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Frese (Patent 5,909,545).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Frese discloses every element of the challenged independent claims. Frese teaches a system for remotely controlling an application where a "remote display module" (RDM), or executable code, is sent to a user's browser. The RDM captures user input and sends event messages to a server. The server processes the input and returns updated data to the client display. Critically, Petitioner argued Frese teaches that the server generates data based on both the user's actions and "attributes and parameters describing the operating system environment of [the client] system," thus anticipating the key limitation requiring use of client device information.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ferris and Moshfeghi - Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 20-21, and 24-25 are obvious over Ferris in view of Moshfeghi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ferris (WO 98/44695) and Moshfeghi (Patent 6,076,166).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Ferris discloses a system for synchronizing information between client-side Java applets and server-side application logic. In Ferris, user-initiated applet events trigger communication with the server, which invokes application logic and "pushes" updated data values back to the client applets for display. Moshfeghi was again cited to provide the teaching of personalizing the server's response by generating these data values based on client device characteristics in addition to the user event.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ferris's efficient applet synchronization method with Moshfeghi's server-side dynamic content generation to create a more robust and responsive user experience. The petition presented the references as disclosing complementary technologies that addressed the common problem of building interactive web applications.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known elements from similar client-server systems was argued to be a common-sense application of known techniques that would achieve a predictable result.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the primary combination of Ferris and Moshfeghi, supplemented with Outlook 98 (for drag-and-drop email features), Gish (for real-time stock ticker data), and Shaw (for session state management), but relied on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "remotely stored application": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a software program, stored remotely from the client device... that executes specific tasks based on end user input." This construction was central to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art that merely sends static data or information.
  • "client device information": Petitioner argued for a broad construction including "any information relating to the hardware, software, user interface capabilities, operating system, or locally stored data of the client device." This broad scope was critical for mapping references like Moshfeghi and Frese onto the claims.
  • "interactive link": For claim 23, Petitioner proposed construing this coined term to require code that both retrieves a remote application and includes facilities for restoring its previous operating state, thereby distinguishing it from conventional hyperlinks, bookmarks, or URLs.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Effective Priority Date: A central contention of the petition was that the ’115 patent is not entitled to any priority date earlier than November 24, 2003. Petitioner argued the chain of priority back to a 1999 provisional application was broken because the application for the ’115 patent failed to properly and specifically reference the full priority chain in its specification or an application data sheet, as required by MPEP rules and 35 U.S.C. §120. This later priority date was critical for establishing that the asserted references, including Franco PCT (published 2001), qualify as invalidating prior art.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-25 of Patent 8,402,115 as unpatentable.