PTAB

IPR2017-01003

Facebook Inc v. Sound View Innovations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Content Interpolating Web Proxy Server
  • Brief Description: The ’860 patent relates to a system that uses a server to alter web content for delivery to different client devices. The server processes a client request, identifies the client type, retrieves the requested web content and an associated "augmentation file," uses that file to transform the content, and delivers the altered content to the client.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over XML Enabler and Pardi - Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 are obvious over XML Enabler in view of Pardi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: XML Enabler (a 1999 web article describing IBM software), Pardi (a 1999 reference book titled "XML in Action").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that XML Enabler taught the core system of independent claim 1. XML Enabler described a server-side program (“servlet”) that receives an HTTP request, determines the client type from the HTTP header, retrieves an XML document, selects a corresponding Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) stylesheet based on the client type, and uses an XSL Processor to combine them and return transformed content to the client. Petitioner asserted that the well-known XSL stylesheet in XML Enabler corresponds to the claimed "augmentation file." To supply details not explicit in XML Enabler, Petitioner relied on Pardi to teach the claimed functions of "parsing" the web content into component structures and applying a "pattern matching process," explaining these were inherent, fundamental operations of any XSL processor known at the time.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) implementing the system in XML Enabler, which relies on XML and XSL technology, would have naturally consulted a standard reference like Pardi to understand the standard, underlying operations of an XSL processor.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable, as Pardi merely explained the inherent and well-known functionality of the XSL processor technology explicitly used by XML Enabler.

Ground 2: Obviousness over XML Enabler and Szlam - Claim 13 is obvious over XML Enabler in view of Szlam.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: XML Enabler (a 1999 web article), Szlam (Patent 6,359,892).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that XML Enabler taught the server-side processing elements of claim 13, which are nearly identical to those in claim 1. The key difference in claim 13 is the limitation that the client device comprises a "virtual client device having a combination of a plurality of different sets of features provided by multiple distinct physical client devices." Petitioner asserted that Szlam taught this limitation by disclosing a portable device that creates a virtual environment to access and control distinct physical office devices, such as a telephone and a desktop computer with a web browser.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the known client system of Szlam with the known server system of XML Enabler. Since XML Enabler was designed to work with any web browser, and Szlam’s virtual environment provided web browsing capability, the combination was a straightforward integration of two compatible systems. Szlam provided an express motivation by explaining the user convenience of such a virtual environment.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a predictable integration of an existing client with an existing server, with no modification to their respective functions.

Ground 3: Obviousness over XML Enabler, Pardi, and Smith - Claim 18 is obvious over XML Enabler in view of Pardi and Smith.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: XML Enabler (a 1999 web article), Pardi (a 1999 reference book), Smith (a 1998 article on transcoding internet content).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that XML Enabler and Pardi together taught the core content transformation process recited in claim 18. Claim 18 differs from claim 1 by explicitly reciting two separate servers: a "web server" that stores content and an "interpolating proxy server" that retrieves and alters the content. Petitioner argued that Smith taught this specific architecture. Smith described a transcoding system that could be deployed on a proxy server, separate from the content server, to retrieve, analyze, and transcode internet content before delivering it to the client.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the XML Enabler system on the proxy server architecture taught by Smith. Smith explicitly stated that deploying such a system on a proxy server was a known design choice that could improve performance, providing a clear reason for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because implementing a content transformation service on a proxy server was a well-known, finite design choice for improving system performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Augmentation File": Petitioner argued this term, defined broadly in the patent to include any script or file defining a translation or alteration, should be understood to encompass a standard XSL stylesheet, which performs this exact function.
  • "Interpolating Proxy Server": Based on the patent’s specification, Petitioner asserted this term should be construed as "a proxy server that performs transcoding, translation, or other types of processing operations involving web content," a concept well-known in the prior art.
  • "Virtual Client Device": Citing statements made during prosecution, Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a client device that is simulated or artificially created," which aligns with the virtual environment disclosed in the Szlam reference.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 18 as unpatentable.