PTAB

IPR2018-00321

Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless v. Bridge and Post, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Patent #: 9,659,314
  • Filed: December 18, 2017
  • Petitioner(s): Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
  • Patent Owner(s): Bridge and Post, Inc.
  • Challenged Claims: 1-21

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Improving Selection of Media for Delivery to a Targeted User
  • Brief Description: The ’314 patent discloses methods for delivering targeted media to a user. The system involves a network routing device intercepting a user's network traffic, tagging the traffic with a request identifier (RID) that includes an encrypted user identifier, and transmitting the tagged traffic to a destination site, which can then decode the RID to retrieve user information for content targeting.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Harada and Roker - Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 20-21 are obvious over Harada in view of Roker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Harada (WO 00/73876) and Roker (WO 2006/081680).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Harada discloses a media targeting system that intercepts a data request from a client, encrypts profile information (e.g., username, demographics), augments the request by adding the encrypted information into HTTP header fields, and sends it to a target server. The target server can then decrypt the information to customize content. Roker was argued to disclose a similar system for providing personalized internet content by having a network device intercept and alter user traffic. Roker specifically teaches using a static unique identifier (like a static IP address) for the user and obscuring the user’s profile to maintain privacy.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine these references as they address nearly identical problems in the same field. A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Roker’s teachings on using a static, unique, and anonymized identifier into Harada’s system to improve the security and effectiveness of tailoring content based on user profile information, particularly where such information leaves the service provider's trusted network.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the systems, as it involved applying Roker's known method of user identification to improve the known content targeting system of Harada, a predictable implementation.

Ground II: Obviousness over Harada, Roker, and Short - Claims 12-13 are obvious over the combination of Harada and Roker in view of Short.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Harada (WO 00/73876), Roker (WO 2006/081680), and Short (Application # 2005/0172154).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Harada and Roker combination by adding Short. Petitioner argued that Short teaches a system for managing rights to view digital content by using a unique identifier associated with a client device. This system verifies the right of the device to access content, addressing the limitation of "verifying a right of the client computing device" in claim 12. Short further discloses that rights management can control when content may be accessed, teaching the time-based access limitation of claim 13.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have been motivated to implement Short's rule-based content blocking into the Harada/Roker system to further customize the user's browsing experience, which Petitioner asserted was a stated goal of Roker.

Ground III: Obviousness over Harada, Roker, and Parekh - Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are obvious over the combination of Harada and Roker in view of Parekh.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Harada (WO 00/73876), Roker (WO 2006/081680), and Parekh (WO 00/67450).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Parekh to the base combination to teach more specific types of user preferences. Petitioner asserted Parekh discloses creating user profiles based on internet interactions, including "browsing patterns" and "site preferences," which maps to the limitations of claim 8. Parekh also teaches tracking "time spent at the web site," which, combined with Harada's use of a timestamp to prevent replay attacks, was argued to teach the "user network usage information" (e.g., "time of use," "length of sessions") of claim 9. For claims 17-18, Parekh’s disclosure of targeting based on commercial interests and location-specific information (e.g., local news/weather) was argued to render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would have incorporated Parekh’s detailed user profiling techniques to improve the precision and flexibility of the ad targeting system of Harada and Roker, which was a primary object of both base references.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges over the core Harada and Roker combination, further combined with Mathai (WO 00/67092) to teach targeting content based on "local events" (Claim 19) and with Microsoft (a 2001 product activation document) to teach performing a one-way hash on a hardware-based unique device identifier like a MAC address (Claim 11).

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued the ’314 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of March 10, 2007. The argument was that the provisional application lacks written description support for a key feature common to all independent claims: encrypting a user identifier into an "alphanumeric string." Petitioner contended the provisional's sparse disclosure fails to show the inventors possessed this feature at the time of filing, making the effective filing date March 10, 2008, and thus broadening the scope of applicable prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Arguments Against §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Although the U.S. application publication of Roker was before the examiner during prosecution, the examiner was not aware of Harada. Petitioner asserted that Harada is a stronger primary reference and that the new combination of Harada and Roker presents arguments that are not the same or substantially the same as those previously considered by the USPTO. Therefore, the petition raises new issues that warrant review.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’314 patent as unpatentable.