Facebook Inc v. Hyper Search LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00041
• Patent #: 6,271,840
• Filed: October 5, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Facebook, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Hyper Search LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1 and 13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Graphical Search Engine Visual Index
• Brief Description: The ’840 patent describes a system for generating a visual index of web data. The system creates a reduced-size graphical representation (e.g., a thumbnail) of data associated with a URL and embeds a hyperlink in the thumbnail that directs a user to the original web page.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claim 13 over Angiulo

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Angiulo (Patent 6,275,829)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Angiulo discloses all limitations of claim 13, which recites a method for summarizing web data. Angiulo teaches a method for automatically replacing a full-size image on a web page with a reduced-size thumbnail. The process inherently involves receiving a URL for the web page containing the original image (limitation 13[a]) and retrieving the associated image data (13[b]). Angiulo explicitly discloses a user interface for obtaining image scale information, such as a reduction ratio or specific dimensions, to control the thumbnail creation (13[c]). This information is then used for scaling the original image data to render the reduced thumbnail (13[d]). Angiulo further teaches automatically embedding a hyperlink in the thumbnail that points to a second URL for the original, full-size image (13[e]) and transmitting the resulting thumbnail for display (13[f]). This process provides a graphical summary that allows for rapid review by a viewer (13[g]).
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 1 over Angiulo and Sanu

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Angiulo (Patent 6,275,829) and Sanu (Patent 6,145,003)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 1, directed to a browser interface, is obvious over the combination of Angiulo and Sanu. Angiulo was argued to teach most claim elements, including a "web page renderer" (its thumbnail creation software) that receives retrieved data, obtains image scale and format information, and transmits a reduced image with an embedded hyperlink. However, Angiulo does not expressly disclose a "web crawler." Petitioner contended Sanu remedies this deficiency by teaching a web crawler that receives a starting URL from a source of URLs, retrieves the associated web document data, and transmits that data as output for use by other programs. The combination would result in Sanu's crawler retrieving web page data (HTML and image files) and providing it as input to Angiulo's thumbnail generation software.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Sanu's automated web document retrieval with Angiulo's thumbnail generation to create an efficient and automated visual indexing system. Sanu explicitly states its web crawler is designed to retrieve data and prepare it "to be subsequently processed by other programs," such as Angiulo's thumbnail renderer. Both references are in the analogous field of processing and presenting web information to users.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a known data retrieval tool (Sanu's crawler) with a known data processing tool (Angiulo's renderer) was a straightforward integration of existing technologies to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 1 over Angiulo, Sanu, Martin, and Fox

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Angiulo (Patent 6,275,829), Sanu (Patent 6,145,003), Martin (Patent 6,145,003), and Fox (a 1996 textbook, Web Publisher’s Construction Kit with HTML 3.2)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses a potential interpretation of claim 1 where the "reduced image" must be a representation of the entire visible web page, including text, not just an image on the page as taught by Angiulo. To meet this interpretation, Petitioner introduced Martin, which teaches creating an image file that captures the entire content of a document as displayed on a screen (a "screen dump"). Under this combination, Martin's method would first capture an image of the entire web page. This full-page image file would then be fed into Angiulo's software to be scaled down into a single thumbnail. The hyperlink embedded in this thumbnail would then point back to the full-size captured image file, ensuring a faithful and consistent visual representation of the original page. Sanu's role as the web crawler remains the same as in Ground 2.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to solve a known problem with HTML: inconsistent rendering across different browsers and user settings. Martin and Fox expressly identified this problem. A POSITA would be motivated to use Martin's screen capture technique to create a faithful image of a web page and then use Angiulo's thumbnailing technique to make that larger, more accurate image file efficiently accessible to users without slowing down the initial page load.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The techniques for rendering web pages and capturing screen images were well-known and technologically straightforward, presenting no obstacles to a POSITA seeking to combine them to create more reliable web page previews.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), stating that the petition did not present the "same or substantially the same prior art or arguments" previously presented to the USPTO. It was emphasized that none of the prior art references relied upon in the petition (Angiulo, Sanu, Martin, or Fox) were cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’840 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 13 of Patent 6,271,840 as unpatentable.