PTAB

IPR2015-01707

BITCO Corp v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Network Sales System
  • Brief Description: The ’177 patent discloses a network-based sales system where a user can create and maintain a personalized "centralized access point," such as a custom webpage. Users can select content from various distributed sources on a network and add representations of that content, like hyperlinks, to their centralized point, which then serves as a customized portal.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Payne and O'Neil - Claims 11, 12, and 17 are obvious over Payne in view of O'Neil.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Payne (Patent 5,715,314) and O'Neil (Patent 5,987,440).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that independent claim 11 requires enabling a user to log on to their "centralized access point" from a separate "distributed information access point." Payne was asserted to disclose the centralized access point (a "smart statement") and the distributed access point (an "advertising document"). While Payne taught user login, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to place that login capability directly onto Payne’s advertising documents. O'Neil was cited as evidence that placing login functionality on a public-facing homepage was a well-known design choice at the time.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these elements to provide users with an efficient and user-friendly way to purchase advertised content or access functions available only to registered users. Placing the login directly on the advertising document would streamline the user experience, a clear and recognized goal in web design.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as adding a login link to a webpage was a common, trivial, and predictable modification that involved applying known techniques to a known system to yield a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Payne and Ackley - Claims 13 and 15 are obvious over Payne in view of Ackley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Payne (Patent 5,715,314) and Ackley (Patent 8,601,373).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 13 builds on claim 11 by adding the limitation that the distributed information access point is "further operative to accept content contributions from a user." While Payne's system focused on users purchasing content, Ackley disclosed a web-based system where the same user could both buy items and contribute items for sale. Petitioner asserted that integrating Ackley's dual-role user functionality into Payne's content sales system was an obvious modification. Payne itself was argued to suggest the desirability of a system where users could both buy and sell.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of Payne and Ackley to expand the amount and variety of content available in Payne's network sales system. Enabling the existing user base to also become content contributors was a known strategy for growing online marketplaces.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a straightforward application of existing techniques. Allowing users to act as both buyers and sellers on a single platform was a known feature of online systems, and a POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully implement this functionality in Payne's system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 16 is obvious based on similar logic applied to claim 11. The core of the argument was that Payne disclosed the claimed "selecting content... for addition to a centralized access point," and that adding the required "accessing" functionality (i.e., a login) from a distributed point was an obvious modification for the reasons articulated in Ground 1.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "content": Petitioner argued that the term "content" must be construed to include "links to content." The petition asserted that this construction is required by the patent's intrinsic evidence. The specification explicitly describes a "link type content object" and provides figures where the only disclosed example of adding "content" to a user's personalized page is the addition of a hyperlink. Petitioner contended that Patent Owner's proposed narrower construction, which would exclude links, improperly reads out the patent’s sole disclosed embodiment of the claimed functionality.
  • "selecting content ... for addition to a centralized access point": Consistent with its position on "content," Petitioner argued that this claim phrase must be interpreted to cover the selection of information that results in adding a link to the user's personalized webpage. Petitioner asserted this construction is necessary because it is the only detailed example of this functionality described in the ’177 patent's specification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 11-13 and 15-17 of the ’177 patent as unpatentable.